Rep-re-sen-ta-tive:
/ˌrepriˈzentətiv/
Adjective: Typical of a class, group, or body of opinion.
Noun: A person chosen or appointed to act or speak for another or others, in particular. Specifically regarding the US House of Representatives, each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
One would hope that an actual Representative would be aware of such requirements. But, it seems to be a surprise to Representative Chip Cravaack, resident of New Hampshire, who is supposed to be the Representative of Minnesota's 8th District. While it is not required that a Representative live within the district which they are supposedly representing (see, Michele Bachmann), they do, in fact, have to inhabit their state. Not just own a house there.
While we should recognize that a Representative might have a need to spend a significant amount of time in Washington, D.C., or on travel to other states and countries, it is expected that they have some sort of stake (other than political) in the state they supposedly represent.
Such stake could be, for example, where they and their family live. Where their spouse works. Or where their children go to school.
A stake may be supplemented by being your "home state" (where you were born), your alma mater state (where you got your higher education degree), or a state where you might have a (real) job. Though, these things are merely secondary.
Chip Cravaack has none of these things.
Chip was born in West Virginia, which is not Minnesota. Chip graduated high school in Cincinnati, which is not located in Minnesota. Chip graduated from the United States Naval Academy (in Maryland) University of West Florida, which is, oddly enough, in Florida.
Chip did work as a pilot at Northwest Airlines, which was headquartered in Minnesota, but now is nonexistent. He then lived (off of a medical disability pension for sleep apnea, as well as the teat of the taxpayers taking unemployment for a time) in Cambridge, MN.
Now, he lives in New Hampshire, where his wife and children live. While he did live in Minnesota for over 20 years, he no longer has a stake in the state. http://www.startribune.com/politics/144165235.html (Note: it's about freaking time this got "lamestream" coverage)
He recognizes that his move put a "five mile target on [his] back," but he seems to think that if he raises enough money, it's ok that he doesn't actually fulfill the requirements of being a Representative in the state of Minnesota.
Considering that he ran, and won, on the basis that the previous incumbent (Jim Oberstar) had supposedly "lost touch" with the people he represented, it is ironic that Cravaack thinks he can do better in an altogether different state.
Chip, feel free to get some talk-show motivation near your new home. Walk into another politician's office and demand that they see you. Get off on some self-righteousness, and hijack a seat there, if you wish. But, do yourself a favor and quit pretending you're representing Minnesota. I'd say you're making yourself look like an ass, but that would be an insult to long-eared equids, and you don't even represent them, either.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Get out the Vote! It might be your last chance
Yeah, yeah. I know that many other states have enacted voter ID legislation. And I know that the courts have, so far, generally upheld them. That should ease my mind, right?
No.
First, where's the fire? So far, no one has provided any evidence of widespread and intentional voter fraud. They haven't even been able to provide evidence of either one separately. Recently, proponents of voter ID trotted out a single example of a woman who stupidly voted for her daughter, who was off at college, with an absentee ballot. Wow. That's pretty overwhelming. Absent that, at least in Minnesota, there are the examples of felons who voted because they didn't realize their full voting rights had not yet been returned (a confusing situation, considering every state has different laws regarding felon voting rights).
So, the evidence is not overwhelming that there is widespread voter fraud. A few dozen out of millions of votes. And in none of the cases was it intentional. Most importantly, we know about these because the system ALREADY WORKED.
Even assuming we only know about them because they all turned themselves in following their illegal voting sprees, their votes would not have significantly affected any outcomes. "But wait! What about Al Franken and Norm Coleman?" some might say, "Those few dozen votes could have made the all the difference in the world! After all, that commie (short for comedian, right?) wouldn't have been Senator, then!" (Fox "News" even put out a very unbalanced article titled "Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Says.")
Wrong. If anyone that followed that election (and recount and recount and recount and recount...) and bothered to put their brain in gear, it would have been clear that EVERY vote was scrutinized. Every ballot was scoured for defects. Every voter on every list was analyzed and considered. If Norm Coleman could have pointed to illegal voting as the cause of his loss, he would have. Even his attorney conceded that there was no widespread voter fraud.
Second, where's the solution? Even if we concede that voter fraud is a bad thing (which it is), and that it needs to be stopped right now (it should be), will voter ID fix our (apparently not so) horribly corrupted voting system?
Survey says? No.
While convicted felons that have been let out of prison on parole may not legally be able to vote yet, they have perfectly legal access to identification. As does every other person legally residing in a state within the United States. As of right now, at least in Minnesota, a state-issued identification card does not denote voting status for US citizens. So, simply requiring an identification card doesn't fix the supposed problem.
Why not add something to an identification card that says whether or not you're eligible to vote? Great question! (At least on its surface.) If a felon has a legitimate identification obtained before conviction, then you'd have to require felons to get a new ID for use only during parole. If you can't find any difficulties in that, you're being naive. Beyond that, the length of time a felon can be on parole varies, ranging from a few months to many years. The life span of a driver's license, the most common state-issued identification, is 4 years in Minnesota. If you have a driver's license, you know why you wouldn't want to have to get one more often.
Aside from being a test in patience, getting a new identification is a test in flexibility. That is, flexibility with your job, your transportation, your time, and your cash. A driver's license is not free; they're $15 to $24, depending on the license type. And even if we make voter IDs free, they are STILL not free. If you've ever had to get a copy of your birth certificate, you know that. If you ever had to take time off your job, drive to the DMV or other state government location, and get a new driver's license just because you moved, you know it's not free to get an ID.
They're still not free. Even if we removed ALL of those other expenses. We will pay for them via taxes, especially if we moved to create a new ID only usable for voting.
Above and beyond the cost of the IDs themselves, we will need to pay for the infrastructure required to utilize IDs to allow voters to vote. And figure out how to get more volunteers recruited and trained to run the polls during elections. And hire extra voting judges for questions related to provisional balloting. Etc. While the costs, in the millions for the first year alone, are only in the millions (chump change, if you look at the state budget), we're talking about additional costs at a time when we simply can't afford more.
We're doing it because we can. Clearly, without a need and without a solution, and in light of unnecessary costs, one must ask 'why?' For voters that may vote for such a change--to be put into the state constitution in MN, not in legislation, and without any practical details--the answer might be because they believe the problem is severe. Or they might believe that it's somehow not fair that people can cheat (regardless of whether they actually do). Or they might believe that you simply can't trust people to be able to vouch for one another. "Those dirty bastards vouching for granny at the assisted living home might just vouch for that illegal immigrant that I just KNOW is voting to take away my job!"
Public paranoia and me-vs-them-ism.
For the politicians, more is at work in this issue. It's about a couple of things: numbers and numbers. The first is the number of people likely to vote for politicians that agree with you. Generally speaking, those people most affected by being required to get a piece of plastic with your picture on it in order to participate in the political process are poor or have lower mobility. People who are not flexible with their jobs, their transportation, their time, or their money. Democrats.
The second is the number of people that will come out to vote. Republicans are catering to their basest of the base. They may have discovered that people on their side are, on average, luke warm about gay marriage and people on the other side are fired up as hell about it. Democrats might actually be motivated to go to the polls over that one. And while they're there, they might vote to kick your bigoted ass out of office. Oops.
Why should we care? It's just a bit of money, right? People who vote for the amendment are obviously ok with the cost, and majority rule, and all that. If there's no problem and no solution, it's ok, right? All's fair in politics, so whatever gets out the vote must be fine, right?
Wrong.
Any time you put up an impediment to voting, you are stepping on those rights afforded to us as Americans. While we want to keep our polls pristine, it is far uglier to prevent natural born (and legally naturalized) citizens from voting.
You might rationalize it this way (and people do): Well, people need IDs all the time. To drive, to get a bank account, to travel. I don't see how anyone could not live without one, and in any case, they SHOULD have one.
Driving, owning a bank account, and entering a foreign country are not rights. Voting is. We should not base our ability to vote on our ability to do things that are not essential rights within the scope of being an American citizen. AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!
In any case, there are plenty of people without IDs, who have no need of one. A great number of them are senior citizens, including veterans. People who owned this country before your sorry ass was born. Should we disown them as voting members of our society just because they don't get around much anymore? They can't mail order a new ID because they let their driver's license expire. And getting the grand kids to drop by just for a visit, let alone to escort them to the government building to get a new ID, is a chore. To further complicate things, if you were born before a certain period of time, finding proof of your birth to get an ID is difficult.
A good number of people on the edge of poverty, particularly the WORKING POOR, don't have access to getting an ID. Not everyone has the opportunity to take off work at noon, spend forever at the DMV or other government office and fork out $24 of otherwise-grocery money, to get an ID. In many cases, the reason they don't have one is because they walk or take the bus everywhere because they can't afford a car. Ever try to get a bus to the right place at the right time in a reasonable amount of time? Yeah...just double the necessary time to get anything done.
Outrageous! Yes, a proper American should be indignant about the whole ploy to keep grandpa and poor people from voting. But, so far, courts have upheld it. If you think that means everything is hunky dorey, think again. Who is being disenfranchised here? People who have the least access to IDs are also the ones with the least access to the legal system. The courts have only so far held up the laws as being constitutional on their face. The practical effects of these laws have not yet been tested. The courts have pretty much said that if it actually results in a poll tax (which IS unconstitutional), these laws must be struck down. To which proponents of voter ID say "See! No one has complained!" Ah...but there's the rub.
These are the people with no means to complain.
No.
First, where's the fire? So far, no one has provided any evidence of widespread and intentional voter fraud. They haven't even been able to provide evidence of either one separately. Recently, proponents of voter ID trotted out a single example of a woman who stupidly voted for her daughter, who was off at college, with an absentee ballot. Wow. That's pretty overwhelming. Absent that, at least in Minnesota, there are the examples of felons who voted because they didn't realize their full voting rights had not yet been returned (a confusing situation, considering every state has different laws regarding felon voting rights).
So, the evidence is not overwhelming that there is widespread voter fraud. A few dozen out of millions of votes. And in none of the cases was it intentional. Most importantly, we know about these because the system ALREADY WORKED.
 |
| Note how his eyebrows look evil. (Borrowed from Politico.com) |
Wrong. If anyone that followed that election (and recount and recount and recount and recount...) and bothered to put their brain in gear, it would have been clear that EVERY vote was scrutinized. Every ballot was scoured for defects. Every voter on every list was analyzed and considered. If Norm Coleman could have pointed to illegal voting as the cause of his loss, he would have. Even his attorney conceded that there was no widespread voter fraud.
Second, where's the solution? Even if we concede that voter fraud is a bad thing (which it is), and that it needs to be stopped right now (it should be), will voter ID fix our (apparently not so) horribly corrupted voting system?
Survey says? No.
While convicted felons that have been let out of prison on parole may not legally be able to vote yet, they have perfectly legal access to identification. As does every other person legally residing in a state within the United States. As of right now, at least in Minnesota, a state-issued identification card does not denote voting status for US citizens. So, simply requiring an identification card doesn't fix the supposed problem.
Why not add something to an identification card that says whether or not you're eligible to vote? Great question! (At least on its surface.) If a felon has a legitimate identification obtained before conviction, then you'd have to require felons to get a new ID for use only during parole. If you can't find any difficulties in that, you're being naive. Beyond that, the length of time a felon can be on parole varies, ranging from a few months to many years. The life span of a driver's license, the most common state-issued identification, is 4 years in Minnesota. If you have a driver's license, you know why you wouldn't want to have to get one more often.
Aside from being a test in patience, getting a new identification is a test in flexibility. That is, flexibility with your job, your transportation, your time, and your cash. A driver's license is not free; they're $15 to $24, depending on the license type. And even if we make voter IDs free, they are STILL not free. If you've ever had to get a copy of your birth certificate, you know that. If you ever had to take time off your job, drive to the DMV or other state government location, and get a new driver's license just because you moved, you know it's not free to get an ID.
They're still not free. Even if we removed ALL of those other expenses. We will pay for them via taxes, especially if we moved to create a new ID only usable for voting.
Above and beyond the cost of the IDs themselves, we will need to pay for the infrastructure required to utilize IDs to allow voters to vote. And figure out how to get more volunteers recruited and trained to run the polls during elections. And hire extra voting judges for questions related to provisional balloting. Etc. While the costs, in the millions for the first year alone, are only in the millions (chump change, if you look at the state budget), we're talking about additional costs at a time when we simply can't afford more.
We're doing it because we can. Clearly, without a need and without a solution, and in light of unnecessary costs, one must ask 'why?' For voters that may vote for such a change--to be put into the state constitution in MN, not in legislation, and without any practical details--the answer might be because they believe the problem is severe. Or they might believe that it's somehow not fair that people can cheat (regardless of whether they actually do). Or they might believe that you simply can't trust people to be able to vouch for one another. "Those dirty bastards vouching for granny at the assisted living home might just vouch for that illegal immigrant that I just KNOW is voting to take away my job!"
Public paranoia and me-vs-them-ism.
For the politicians, more is at work in this issue. It's about a couple of things: numbers and numbers. The first is the number of people likely to vote for politicians that agree with you. Generally speaking, those people most affected by being required to get a piece of plastic with your picture on it in order to participate in the political process are poor or have lower mobility. People who are not flexible with their jobs, their transportation, their time, or their money. Democrats.
The second is the number of people that will come out to vote. Republicans are catering to their basest of the base. They may have discovered that people on their side are, on average, luke warm about gay marriage and people on the other side are fired up as hell about it. Democrats might actually be motivated to go to the polls over that one. And while they're there, they might vote to kick your bigoted ass out of office. Oops.
Why should we care? It's just a bit of money, right? People who vote for the amendment are obviously ok with the cost, and majority rule, and all that. If there's no problem and no solution, it's ok, right? All's fair in politics, so whatever gets out the vote must be fine, right?
Wrong.
Any time you put up an impediment to voting, you are stepping on those rights afforded to us as Americans. While we want to keep our polls pristine, it is far uglier to prevent natural born (and legally naturalized) citizens from voting.
You might rationalize it this way (and people do): Well, people need IDs all the time. To drive, to get a bank account, to travel. I don't see how anyone could not live without one, and in any case, they SHOULD have one.
Driving, owning a bank account, and entering a foreign country are not rights. Voting is. We should not base our ability to vote on our ability to do things that are not essential rights within the scope of being an American citizen. AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!
In any case, there are plenty of people without IDs, who have no need of one. A great number of them are senior citizens, including veterans. People who owned this country before your sorry ass was born. Should we disown them as voting members of our society just because they don't get around much anymore? They can't mail order a new ID because they let their driver's license expire. And getting the grand kids to drop by just for a visit, let alone to escort them to the government building to get a new ID, is a chore. To further complicate things, if you were born before a certain period of time, finding proof of your birth to get an ID is difficult.
A good number of people on the edge of poverty, particularly the WORKING POOR, don't have access to getting an ID. Not everyone has the opportunity to take off work at noon, spend forever at the DMV or other government office and fork out $24 of otherwise-grocery money, to get an ID. In many cases, the reason they don't have one is because they walk or take the bus everywhere because they can't afford a car. Ever try to get a bus to the right place at the right time in a reasonable amount of time? Yeah...just double the necessary time to get anything done.
Outrageous! Yes, a proper American should be indignant about the whole ploy to keep grandpa and poor people from voting. But, so far, courts have upheld it. If you think that means everything is hunky dorey, think again. Who is being disenfranchised here? People who have the least access to IDs are also the ones with the least access to the legal system. The courts have only so far held up the laws as being constitutional on their face. The practical effects of these laws have not yet been tested. The courts have pretty much said that if it actually results in a poll tax (which IS unconstitutional), these laws must be struck down. To which proponents of voter ID say "See! No one has complained!" Ah...but there's the rub.
These are the people with no means to complain.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The hypocrisy, it burns
Are all politicians liars? I'm not sure I want to believe that. I understand that politicians can't be as forthright as I prefer. It's why I'd never be elected should I ever run for office. I tend to tell the truth in all its bold glory, often with my Is-this-nice Filter out of order. The problem with the truth is that there's always someone (often many someones) that it applies to in an unfavorable way.
I find it more than frustrating that many people can point in the general direction of the state capitol or Washington, D.C., and say "there be liars." Of course, I find it particularly astounding when those same people will then spout the same BS that certain politicians fabricate to get elected and to spread the general political hate around. Wait...what? You just said all politicians are liars, and now you're trying to fill me up with bull I've only ever heard in political conversations originating from one of those lying politicians?!? The hypocrisy, it burns.
Unfortunately, in my small experience, all politicians may not be liars, but they certainly aren't very forthright with the truth. Truth and fact can be bendy sometimes, and it seems to be a characteristic that successful politicians take advantage of. I, personally, can buy that sometimes the end justifies the means...but within limits. When a bendy fact becomes a lie, you've crossed the line.
I met up with my state senator a few weeks ago who told me that the state Department of Natural Resources manages school trust lands (fact). He told me that that relationship resulted in a conflict of interest (possibly true, but must be borne out by facts). He told me that Minnesota's school trust lands don't make a lot of money (relative, but not a lie). He told me that Minnesota's management of school trust lands is probably (bendy word) the worst of any state in the nation (getting pretty bendy, here, even without having to do much research--probably pushing a lie). He told me that 95% of the income from school trust lands goes back into management of those lands (lie!). He told me that he introduced a bill (fact) that fixes this (bendy!). And it should be passed (opinion) because the land doesn't belong to us (REALLY bendy), but the children (oh geez, you're playing the emotions game with the wrong person, buddy *eyeroll*).
You see, the situation above really only has one outright lie. But the rest is awfully bendy truth, opinions, and emotional manipulation. The resulting message is a lie. While he might believe it, I'm not dumb enough to. I see this for what it is: an attempt to scratch some backs by putting people who might profit into a position to take advantage of state resources for development. (Note: The media has outright failed in looking at this legislation. The existence of it has been in the news, including Minnesota Public Radio, but not a single one of them has done anything but report the existence of the bill. Not a single shred of investigation into the politicians' claims has been done outside a "community voice" article found here: http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/03/exchanging-school-trust-lands-isnt-sake-our-children . Media fail.)
I also almost wish they were lying. But the truth is, I can forgive a person for organically deficient, but not so much for being deliberately ignorant. After all, the challenged person can be willing to learn.
I find it more than frustrating that many people can point in the general direction of the state capitol or Washington, D.C., and say "there be liars." Of course, I find it particularly astounding when those same people will then spout the same BS that certain politicians fabricate to get elected and to spread the general political hate around. Wait...what? You just said all politicians are liars, and now you're trying to fill me up with bull I've only ever heard in political conversations originating from one of those lying politicians?!? The hypocrisy, it burns.
Unfortunately, in my small experience, all politicians may not be liars, but they certainly aren't very forthright with the truth. Truth and fact can be bendy sometimes, and it seems to be a characteristic that successful politicians take advantage of. I, personally, can buy that sometimes the end justifies the means...but within limits. When a bendy fact becomes a lie, you've crossed the line.
I met up with my state senator a few weeks ago who told me that the state Department of Natural Resources manages school trust lands (fact). He told me that that relationship resulted in a conflict of interest (possibly true, but must be borne out by facts). He told me that Minnesota's school trust lands don't make a lot of money (relative, but not a lie). He told me that Minnesota's management of school trust lands is probably (bendy word) the worst of any state in the nation (getting pretty bendy, here, even without having to do much research--probably pushing a lie). He told me that 95% of the income from school trust lands goes back into management of those lands (lie!). He told me that he introduced a bill (fact) that fixes this (bendy!). And it should be passed (opinion) because the land doesn't belong to us (REALLY bendy), but the children (oh geez, you're playing the emotions game with the wrong person, buddy *eyeroll*).
You see, the situation above really only has one outright lie. But the rest is awfully bendy truth, opinions, and emotional manipulation. The resulting message is a lie. While he might believe it, I'm not dumb enough to. I see this for what it is: an attempt to scratch some backs by putting people who might profit into a position to take advantage of state resources for development. (Note: The media has outright failed in looking at this legislation. The existence of it has been in the news, including Minnesota Public Radio, but not a single one of them has done anything but report the existence of the bill. Not a single shred of investigation into the politicians' claims has been done outside a "community voice" article found here: http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/03/exchanging-school-trust-lands-isnt-sake-our-children . Media fail.)
I also almost wish they were lying. But the truth is, I can forgive a person for organically deficient, but not so much for being deliberately ignorant. After all, the challenged person can be willing to learn.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Ah Wisconsin
We Minnesotans have been looking askance at our easterly neighbor, recently. It seems the state is going through some sort of mid-life crisis. You know, that time in a person's life when a massive influx of stupid and selfish seems to coincide with the fear of irrelevancy?
Well, two legislators in Wisconsin have just outdone themselves with the stupid part. Apparently, these heroic legislators have brought to light that single parenthood causes child abuse and neglect. Yep. It CAUSES child abuse. And these two geniuses (a word clearly used ironically) have found it necessary to legislate based on this "fact."
Check out Wisconsin Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore's lovely bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb507
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to these two legislators that correlation and causation are two different things, and a correlation is not a good reason to codify religious belief. Of course, these guys are not speaking with any sort of authority. I can find no evidence that Sen. Grothman (about Grothman) even has a family, or that either (about Pridemore) has any experience that might suggest he knows what he's talking about when it comes to families and child abuse and neglect.
If one wishes to follow the type of logic that resulted in the drafting of this ridiculous bill, one can make all kinds of ridiculous statements. For example, Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore are Republicans. Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore have their heads up their asses. Therefore, being a Republican is the cause of Sen. Grothman's and Rep. Pridemore's cases of recto-cranial inversion. We should have the state pay for public service announcements warning people to refrain from becoming Republicans.
Well, two legislators in Wisconsin have just outdone themselves with the stupid part. Apparently, these heroic legislators have brought to light that single parenthood causes child abuse and neglect. Yep. It CAUSES child abuse. And these two geniuses (a word clearly used ironically) have found it necessary to legislate based on this "fact."
Check out Wisconsin Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore's lovely bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb507
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to these two legislators that correlation and causation are two different things, and a correlation is not a good reason to codify religious belief. Of course, these guys are not speaking with any sort of authority. I can find no evidence that Sen. Grothman (about Grothman) even has a family, or that either (about Pridemore) has any experience that might suggest he knows what he's talking about when it comes to families and child abuse and neglect.
If one wishes to follow the type of logic that resulted in the drafting of this ridiculous bill, one can make all kinds of ridiculous statements. For example, Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore are Republicans. Senator Grothman and Representative Pridemore have their heads up their asses. Therefore, being a Republican is the cause of Sen. Grothman's and Rep. Pridemore's cases of recto-cranial inversion. We should have the state pay for public service announcements warning people to refrain from becoming Republicans.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Feminazis are sluts and Rush is a dick
Rush Limbaugh has made his money by being a loud-mouthed jackass. There are plenty of people who do that. And you can't blame them for finding a way to make money for doing what comes naturally. What is particularly unfortunate is that Rush appears to have a sincere following of people that take him at his word. What's even more unfortunate is that the media, politicians, and others treat him as though he's relevant. Why can't we just respond to anything Rush says with "Rush is a moron. So, how's the weather?"
Well, since everyone does treat Rush as though it's worth caring about the shit that flows from his sneering lips, let's take a look at his latest bit of charm. I'm sure you've heard/read/seen all the flap about how Rush equated demanding insurance coverage of birth control with being a prostitute. Oh yes, he even suggested that the amount of birth control required (and being affordable) by a woman was in proportion to the amount of sex she has.
Now, at that point, anyone with a brain SHOULD have said "Rush is a moron," and moved to more important topics, like how long it will take for the paint to dry before applying a second coat.
But noooo.... The media plastered it all over the internet and news and radio. Rush lost some advertisers for being such a moron, but probably more than made up for it by the number of hits his website got. (I admit, I went to his website, but I hope to spare you that pain my dear readers.) Democrats took advantage of his stupidity by raising money--good for them; and demanded that the Republicans denounce Rush--erm...that was dumb. Of course, even dumber is that the Republican presidential hopefuls and head Congressional honchos responded with the equivalent of slapping oneself across the knee with a pseudo-exasperated look and saying "Oh Rush." Pussies.
Anyway, so Rush "apologizes." He says,
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." (If you must provide another hit on his website, you can read it here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush)
I call bullshit. Rush's point was NOT that we shouldn't be discussing "sexual recreational activities" before Congress (Rush certainly enjoyed Clinton's). His point was that he wanted to make a national stir by disagreeing with Ms. Fluke (or at least he knew that his zombie followers disagree with her) and so he personally attacked her.
She had a legitimate reason to be speaking before Congress, and it had nothing to do with her "sexual recreational activities" or what the taxpayers pay (a red herring of a lie if ever there was one), it had to to with whether insurance companies should be required to cover women's health at the same level they cover men's health. Rush, who probably relies on medicated boners, should understand that. But understanding doesn't make him money. Fellating his listeners and sponsors does. Who's the slut now, Mr. Limbaugh?
Well, since everyone does treat Rush as though it's worth caring about the shit that flows from his sneering lips, let's take a look at his latest bit of charm. I'm sure you've heard/read/seen all the flap about how Rush equated demanding insurance coverage of birth control with being a prostitute. Oh yes, he even suggested that the amount of birth control required (and being affordable) by a woman was in proportion to the amount of sex she has.
Now, at that point, anyone with a brain SHOULD have said "Rush is a moron," and moved to more important topics, like how long it will take for the paint to dry before applying a second coat.
But noooo.... The media plastered it all over the internet and news and radio. Rush lost some advertisers for being such a moron, but probably more than made up for it by the number of hits his website got. (I admit, I went to his website, but I hope to spare you that pain my dear readers.) Democrats took advantage of his stupidity by raising money--good for them; and demanded that the Republicans denounce Rush--erm...that was dumb. Of course, even dumber is that the Republican presidential hopefuls and head Congressional honchos responded with the equivalent of slapping oneself across the knee with a pseudo-exasperated look and saying "Oh Rush." Pussies.
Anyway, so Rush "apologizes." He says,
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." (If you must provide another hit on his website, you can read it here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush)
I call bullshit. Rush's point was NOT that we shouldn't be discussing "sexual recreational activities" before Congress (Rush certainly enjoyed Clinton's). His point was that he wanted to make a national stir by disagreeing with Ms. Fluke (or at least he knew that his zombie followers disagree with her) and so he personally attacked her.
She had a legitimate reason to be speaking before Congress, and it had nothing to do with her "sexual recreational activities" or what the taxpayers pay (a red herring of a lie if ever there was one), it had to to with whether insurance companies should be required to cover women's health at the same level they cover men's health. Rush, who probably relies on medicated boners, should understand that. But understanding doesn't make him money. Fellating his listeners and sponsors does. Who's the slut now, Mr. Limbaugh?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The truth about gay marriage, at least in Minnesota
I admit that I lack confidence in my representation in the legislature these days. Particularly the current crop of people, most of whom were rage-elected by people who only voted for the "other guy" because they were generally dissatisfied by the state of pretty much everything during the last major election. Contrary to what some may believe, it wasn't mandate; it was an electoral tantrum. Many of you will lose your positions, whether you deserve to or not, by the same fickle voters because you weren't focused enough on what they irrationally wanted fixed NOW.
I had the opportunity to meet with my state senator yesterday about just WTF is going on in the legislature, at least WTF is going on with relation to him. I had set up the meeting because I just moved into his district, and I want to know if there's a justification for WTF is going on. I planned to meet with him, first, because his position is the most tenuous with respect to my vote.
Before I contacted him, I did my research. His position isn't senior nor particularly notable, so he wasn't in the news a lot. I looked up his bio and his votes. Alas...on some issues that I find important, he was predictably GOP. And I don't mean the good old fashioned type.
Minnesota is a good, Midwestern state (well, at least we claim the location). We don't like to make a fuss. We don't like to be in the news, except for good, non-controversial reasons, like having a city listed in the best cities to live in or being a good place to raise children or for creating the Minnesota Miracle (which makes us proud but if we had any say, it would have a name that was more modest).
But lately, we've been in the news for a controversial reason. Our leaders have made it appear as though we hate gay people.
Now, nothing could be further from the truth for many, if not most of us. But when our largest school district is under scrutiny for having a policy that probably contributed to the suicides of a significant number of gay and perceived-gay students, while administrators (and our illustrious Michele Bachmann) insist that the suicide hotspot is coincidence (as is the sexual orientation or perceived orientation of all the students involved), it starts to smell of homophobicity.
Then, when our legislators--to be fair, mostly one party--feel it is time to put the vote over whether gay people can legally have families up to the people, I certainly wouldn't blame any of my gay friends (or anyone's gay friends) to throw their hands up in the air, say "I get your hint!" and take themselves, their partners, their taxes, and their jobs to the East Coast.
Since I obviously can't comprehend why in the world the state needs to weigh in on what I deem to be a religious issue, let alone drop the damned thing into our state constitution, I am livid.
So, I decided to ask my senator as I had him trapped in a coffee shop for a little me-time. Below, in no particular order (well, other than one that flows best for the purposes of this blog), are the excuses given to me for putting gay rights up to a vote and why they're wrong.
- This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Bullshit. This country was founded on the belief that the king of England was an unfair, money-grubbing prick. If one must scrutinize the founding of this country in the light of religion, there is only one legal document with any standing: the Constitution.
The originally written Constitution had NO references to God, let alone a Judeo-Christian God. (I will tell you where God appears in a constitution--the Middle East, where religion is regularly established by law.) The only reference to religion can be found in the First Amendment, which is one of a handful of Amendments initially added to the Constitution as a Bill of Rights. These were added to the Constitution, not as an afterthought, but as a safeguard believed necessary by James Madison in light of the long history of governments removing rights from its territories, colonies, and people, because they were, by definition, less powerful than the central government. The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Thus, the Constitution--the ONLY founding document with the strength of law--outright prohibits enacting any law regarding establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. By the Constitution, governments under the Constitution may not institutionalize or prohibit any religion. So, even if the founding fathers were flaming Catholics (which they weren't; many were deists, at best), it wouldn't matter. They found it in the best interest of this country to keep religion out of the government.
Thus, the Constitution--the ONLY founding document with the strength of law--outright prohibits enacting any law regarding establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. By the Constitution, governments under the Constitution may not institutionalize or prohibit any religion. So, even if the founding fathers were flaming Catholics (which they weren't; many were deists, at best), it wouldn't matter. They found it in the best interest of this country to keep religion out of the government.
This was deliberate. At the time the Constitution was written, it was tradition to invoke God in the writing of legal documents. While many of the other founders thought the original Constitution obviously provided the rights addressed in the Bill of Rights (which is not surprising, since they already pretty much existed as the English Bill of Rights), Madison thought it necessary to enumerate them.
As an aside, I'd like to know where in the Bible the free market was supported? I find it odd that some "conservatives" happily wrap social issues in the Bible, but worship the free market almost above Jesus when Jesus wasn't a fan of the effects of the free market.
- It is necessary to define marriage on the basis of procreative ability.
Bullshit. Here is a table of potential combinations of people that might arrange a marriage and some notes on procreative ability and the legality of the combination.
Party 1 Party 2 Able to procreate? Legal? Notes
Man (fertile) Woman (fertile) Yes Yes
Man (fertile) Woman (infertile) No Yes If no procreation, why legal?
Man (infertile) Woman (fertile) No Yes If no procreation, why legal?
Man (infertile) Woman (infertile) No Yes If no procreation, why legal?
Man (fertile) Women (multiple) Yes No Procreation ability superior to all other
combinations. Why illegal?
Men (multiple) Woman (fertile) Yes No Warps "Christian" minds.
Man Man No No Beginning to look like we've made laws regarding
the establishment of religion, doesn't it?
the establishment of religion, doesn't it?
Woman Woman No No Procreation still possible with third party, similar
to the infertile man/fertile woman combination.
Yet one is legal in this state and the other isn't.
As you can see, marriage in this state is awarded to couples that have no ability to procreate, so this can't be the only legitimate reason for a state to issue a marriage license.
- It is necessary to define marriage to support the successful raising of children.
Bullshit. Recent controlled scientific studies (the first of their kind) have shown that gay couples that raise children do a good job. Just as good as a man/woman combination. There are no properly scientific studies to the contrary, despite the belief by some people that there are. The difference between belief and fact should be obvious, people.
- It is necessary to define marriage between a man and a woman to prevent the marriage between a man/woman and a dog/child/car/dead person/other non-consenting individual.
Bullshit. Here's a hint...look at the last potential individual listed on that slippery slope. This is important: if it can't consent, it can't get married. Now, people will do bad things to those that can't consent. In fact, the Catholic Church has quite a reputation for that. But if we must define marriage in order to prevent the demoralization of this country, we should define it by the ability of the parties involved to consent. Your dog can't consent. A child can't consent. An inanimate (or dead) object can't consent. As in any legal contract, the parties must have the ability to consent, otherwise it is void. Rome did not fall because the emperor and his people diddled animals. Rome fell because of the rise of Christianity and Islam. The old gods were dead, and the new gods had richer benefactors. Rome was spread out and the newly minted Christian Church was a wealthy seed right in the middle of the Empire. The new bishops were now more powerful than the emperor. The truth isn't as fun as the rumor that Rome fell because of hedonism, is it?
The Truth
Minnesota's political leadership swung GOP only because the public is fickle and simply voted for the "other guy" because they were unhappy with the economy. The electorate hoped that the "other guy" would get them their jobs back. The "other guy," who happens to be mostly GOP, failed to do that. The GOP knows that. The only way the GOP can hope to maintain a majority long term is to get their base (and I mean base) out to vote in record numbers. And the only way to do that is bring up a hot button issue that appeals to that base. Gay marriage, an institution that is already illegal in this state, is the pawn the GOP is using to maintain their seats because they know that the base that comes out to vote on this issue is also the same type of person who will vote for the GOP simply because they are GOP, and not because they did their jobs in the legislature.
Why it could pass
The truth is, the concept of gay marriage burns the flesh of some so-called Christians the way a cross (or garlic or sunlight--interesting that those two things have the same power as a cross...) is supposed to burn the flesh of a vampire. These so-called Christians know that the tide is turning and now is the time to set their doctrine in stone before their kids are old enough to vote.
Why it shouldn't pass
There is no legitimate legal reason we should ever vote on the freedoms of others, let alone memorialize them in a constitution. The purpose of proposing to put this in the constitution is purely to subvert the will of future voters. Subverting the vote of the people is a very anti-American thing to do.
Why it shouldn't pass
There is no legitimate legal reason we should ever vote on the freedoms of others, let alone memorialize them in a constitution. The purpose of proposing to put this in the constitution is purely to subvert the will of future voters. Subverting the vote of the people is a very anti-American thing to do.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Sorry
"I did lose my temper, and I've since apologized."
This is an acceptable response when asked about:
But, it's not acceptable when asked about why you wailed on your child with "the big" belt for several minutes while cussing like a sailor. Judge William Adams crossed the line from corporal punishment of his daughter to assault.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-beat-daughter-remorseful/story?id=14873563
What is that line?
Well, I'm not sure there is a clear definition, but there are several clues.
What is disturbing is that this judge, a man who presides over court cases involving child abuse, has said that he did nothing wrong and that it wasn't as bad as it looked. (Oh, yes, it does look bad, doesn't it.) Clearly, this wasn't the first time this had happened. Why else would a teenage girl have the foresight to start a camera rolling beforehand?
It would be bad enough that this man beat a child. However, while sickening, the fact that he won't face charges because of a statute of limitations prevents it.
The most horrifying part, and the part that one must applaud his daughter for exposing, is that this man's job was to recognize child abuse for what it is and to make legal decisions based on evidence of abuse and he was unable to either recognize abuse or he simply didn't care.
This is an acceptable response when asked about:
- Why you stormed out of the house after an argument
- Why you yelled a profanity at a stranger that ran into you accidentally
- Why you kicked the garbage can over
- Why you didn't talk to your brother at Thanksgiving
- Why you locked the dog out of the house for half an hour after it pooped on the floor
But, it's not acceptable when asked about why you wailed on your child with "the big" belt for several minutes while cussing like a sailor. Judge William Adams crossed the line from corporal punishment of his daughter to assault.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-beat-daughter-remorseful/story?id=14873563
What is that line?
Well, I'm not sure there is a clear definition, but there are several clues.
- He used a weapon. "The big one"...that is, a belt about 2 1/2 inches wide.
- The weapon was specifically chosen for infliction of pain. Again, "the big one."
- He reinitiates the punishment after it had apparently ceased, returning with yet another weapon--a slightly narrower, but stiffer belt--saying "I never got my lickin' on ya."
- He views this as an activity he is entitled to, not that he feels he must do. "I never got my lickin' on ya." This wasn't punishment, it was something he wanted to do.
- Despite the fact that she is a girl of 16 or 17 years old (and he is an adult man) and the fact that she suffers from ataxic cerebral palsy (causing her to, at the very least, have decreased motor function, maybe decreased strength), he nearly knocks himself over as he swings his belt against her.
- He realizes that he's beating her and even says so. "I'll beat you in your fucking face." "I'll beat you into submission."
- Probably the most clear indication that he crossed the line, is that the police can't charge him with injury to a child or assault because the beating took place too long ago. Had it been within the statute of limitations, he could have been charged. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/texas-judge-daughter-beating.html
What is disturbing is that this judge, a man who presides over court cases involving child abuse, has said that he did nothing wrong and that it wasn't as bad as it looked. (Oh, yes, it does look bad, doesn't it.) Clearly, this wasn't the first time this had happened. Why else would a teenage girl have the foresight to start a camera rolling beforehand?
It would be bad enough that this man beat a child. However, while sickening, the fact that he won't face charges because of a statute of limitations prevents it.
The most horrifying part, and the part that one must applaud his daughter for exposing, is that this man's job was to recognize child abuse for what it is and to make legal decisions based on evidence of abuse and he was unable to either recognize abuse or he simply didn't care.
How many children went through his court, having been battered and abused, only to be placed back into the hands of the vicious abusers with his blessing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)