FIRST GIANT STEP TOWARD KRISTIAN TOTALITARIANISM?

Krazy Kansas Gov Brownback has signed into law a bill directing the courts how they can conduct their business. He alone has deemed it illegal for the courts to consider a person’s culture, traditions or religious practices when a legal conflict arises.

Of course, they learned from Oklahoma’s mistake NOT to name specifically sharia law but that is what this law is aimed at – the Muslims.  As soon as they get them out of the way, look out Jews, they’ll be coming for you!  I can see the rather rigid practices of the Hasidic Jews next up on the chopping block.

If this trend of allowing the rabid right-wingers to get their little toeholds into our legal system without challenge continues it is feasible that the Krazy Kristian Koalition will eventually strong arm their way to forcing this nation into a religious totalitarianism.

In North Carolina, the state senate is dominated by GOP members which is how not only the so called marriage amendment got on the ballot but it got on the PRIMARY ballot not the GENERAL ELECTION ballot in Nov. They knew they had a good chance of pushing it through on the primary since only about 1% of eligible voters vote in primaries.  They also knew if it was on the ballot in Nov it most likely would have been defeated.  

Other states are pushing through laws both unconstitutional and punitive toward women. Women haven’t fought hard enough against unequal treatment and injustice, no they want us to step back 100 years and do it all over again.

  I can only hope the people are sick enough of this putrid crap to make some intelligent decisions when November rolls around – but I’m not holding my breath!

Going down slow

As you may know, I spent a few nights in the hospital back at the beginning of April and the bills have begun to roll in.  So far, I'm up to $40,000, or at least I would be if Medicare didn't pick up a good portion of it.  I've been in and out of hospitals since then and I'll be going back up to the Mayo Clinic on Monday and so the meter is still running.  Depending upon how much surgery they do, I wouldn't be surprised to see, if I live, over a hundred thousand on that meter.

Sure, even without insurance I can write a check for a hundred K without having to check my balance, but I'm guessing that's unusual and that most folks - most productive, working folks who don't have and can't get  or can't afford it would wind up in bankruptcy if they get sick.  I believe that very situation is still the number one cause of personal financial disaster in America. Being self employed, back before I was eligible for Medicare, my cost for private, major medical was approaching $20,000 a year for my wife and me. If for some reason coverage had been interrupted, I would have been uninsurable for pre-existing conditions.

What I'd really like to be able to do is to have a discussion with the apologists for the status quo about the proposition that we Americans have the best health care in the world. I'd like to watch them cope with a sudden, life threatening illness  that will require months of tests and procedures by going to the emergency room and handing the bill to the public.  As it is, even for the insured, the delays are insufferable.  Imagine being told you likely have a rare cancer that will surely kill you if not treated instantly and then being told you'd have to wait another month for another test and another month after that to be treated. 

OK, don't imagine, it's too depressing to be reminded of how your sense of well being is as unfounded as a bug flying across the expressway on a Summer night wondering what those pretty lights are.  Just go on thinking you will always go on and that the country you love to brag about gives a good God damn. Only other people get sick and besides, I've got mine so you can go to hell, you damn commie.

How pro-choice are we?

Gallup released a poll this week that has the Religious Right (and, these days, is there any other kind?) screaming in glee. Because it seems to say that America has started hating abortion. A record low 41% of Americans now identify as pro-choice.

But the chronically brilliant John Fugelsang looked at the numbers, and that isn't what it says at all.

(Current TV video stolen from Crooks and Liars.)


And yes, this is the same John Fugelsang who has permanently linked Mitt Romney to the Etch-a-Sketch, for his attempts to rewrite his past positions on just about every subject.

Pot calling the kettle black

So, in the last few months, at least five clinics that dispensed medical marijuana, which is allowed under California law, have been forced to close because of a campaign by the federal Justice Department. And someone is finally calling them out on it.

The San Francisco Democratic Party adopted a resolution yesterday demanding that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag "cease all Federal actions in San Francisco immediately, respect State and local laws, and stop the closure of City-permitted medical cannabis facilities"...

At least 5 permitted San Francisco dispensaries have been forced to close in the last few months as a result of the Obama administration's heightened attack in California. The operators and landlords of these and several more dispensaries were threatened with federal criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture in an effort to shut down access points for the city's tens of thousands of qualified patients. San Francisco has been especially hard hit since October, when California's four U.S. Attorneys escalated an already vigorous federal campaign against medical marijuana.

The DCCC argues that, "the U. S. Attorneys in California are not targeting individuals and organizations that are operating outside of the law, but instead are aggressively persecuting a peaceful and regulated community, wasting Federal resources in using a series of threatening tactics to shut down regulated access to medical cannabis across the state of California." The DCCC also accuses the federal government of "depriving...the State of California [of] much needed tax revenue."

We already know that the War on Marijuana wastes billions of dollars every year (that's just marijuana, by the way), and has accomplished exactly nothing, by anyone's estimation. (And, incidentally, despite Obama's support for medical marijuana during his campaign, his record as president has not been good on the subject.)

Although it's difficult to justify the continued waste of money and resources that the government's battle on the Demon Weed entails, it does occasionally give us some fascinating insights into the minds of the people opposing it.


But rather than pointing out the failed logic in the anti-marijuana arguments, or comparing marijuana and alcohol, someone should probably remember the fact that the prohibition of pot was initially a racist concept.

The early arguments against marijuana weren't that it would "destroy the fabric of society as we know it!" In fact, pot had been prescribed by doctors for many years.

Marijuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea, and rheumatism. Its use as an intoxicant was also commonplace from the 1850s to the 1930s. A campaign conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) sought to portray marijuana as a powerful, addicting substance that would lead users into narcotics addiction. It is still considered a "gateway" drug by some authorities.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007

Care to guess what makes it a "gateway drug"? The fact that it's illegal.

There are no reputable studies that link marijuana use to the use of other drugs, except for one pesky little fact: buying marijuana puts you in contact with people who sell those other drugs. So they're suddenly accessible to you. That's it. That's the sum total of the reasons that make marijuana a "gateway drug."

You see, what happened was, in 1931, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon appointed his soon to be nephew-in-law, Henry J. Anslinger, to head the newly formed Beaureau of Narcotics. And why did Anslinger, a former prohibitionist, decide that it was this naturally-occurring herb that was to blame for all of society's ills? Well, in his words:

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others... Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.

Not that he was the only one who felt that way. William Randolph Hearst, when he wasn't starting wars, was fairly outspoken himself.

Marihuana influences Negroes to to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice.

(To be honest, Hearst had a second reason to declare war on marijuana - it makes a cheap, renewable source of paper, and Hearst was heavily invested in the logging industry.)

Perhaps when you consider the quality of people who celebrated the arrest of pot smokers by pouring themselves a drink, a few other questions might occur to you about the War on Drugs.

Bigotry Isn't Only a Southern Brew

I'm a native North Carolinian and my state turned to the dark side this past Tuesday, voting to amend our state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, indeed any type of union other than a so-called traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I don't know if that means in the tradition of Kim Kardashian or if those who voted for the amendment have something a bit bit longer in mind before it counts as a marriage.


I voted against the amendment as did all the people with whom I'm still speaking. I have no patience with bigotry of any sort and there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The "I'm entitled to my opinion" argument doesn't fly with me. I'm entitled to discontinue all association with you if you choose to be a bigot.


However it is not my intent to rant about bigotry in this post. 


I am disturbed at a trend that I've spotted among quite a few non-southern folks to declare this anti-gay marriage bigotry to be a southern problem. It's not that I mind well deserved criticism directed at my state for the recent vote to add legalized discrimination to our state constitution. I am disturbed because as long as it's the other guy who is responsible then we avoid uniting in a collective effort to dismantle these laws as in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  History is littered with denials of rights up to and including genocide in which everyone says, "Who me? I didn't approve of it. It was ________." (fill in the blank).


Thirty-one states have amended their constitutions to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless the South has cloned itself, this problem extends way beyond the south. 

Only the gray states lack an amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

It was particularly disturbing to read one person's comment, on a blog post about NC's recent vote, asserting that she lived in Virginia and would not set foot in NC because of the passage of Amendment One. Virginia already has a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage. It's as if the country has been asleep since around 2004 when state legislatures began amending state constitutions to enshrine bigotry as legal.


What NC has done is draw attention to this problem yet again. By the way. Minnesota plans to vote on this issue in November 2012. I'm not good at geography, but I'm pretty certain that Minnesota is not in the south. Only six states and the District of Columbia allow same sex marriages as of May 2012. Wikipedia has a good article identifying which states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments and the effect of those amendments that is accurate up until May 2012. It includes NC's recent vote.


Until we face the reality that bigotry knows no geographical boundaries, we're simply going to engage in periodic indignation when homophobia slaps us in the face, blame it on the south and then go on about our business, secure in the myth that only those other people practice bigotry. Thirty-one states down, only 19 more to go. This is a national issue, not a southern one and we need a national strategy to address it.

Learning Parenthood from the Experts

Let me see if I've got this straight (so to speak).

Bristol Palin really has no business being in the public eye, other than the fact that her mother was a failed candidate for vice president who supported abstinence-only education, and Bristol stands as evidence of that policy's success. Is that about right?

So, given that fact, I suppose there's some ironic humor to be had that she keeps cropping up in the media. Most recently coughing up a short column on patheos.com, where she complained about Obama expressing support for marriage equality.

And there's some spectacular logical facepalms in there.

When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission. Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval. (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)

Well, technically, the reason for that is that Christian women are claiming support for a Bible that says:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-25 NIV)

And, for that matter:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Those rules seem pretty straightforward. So, if the women are going to thump their Bibles at everybody, it seems like they should be asked to justify that. That's how it works, young lady - if you don't make the claim, you don't have to justify it.

The main thrust of her argument, though, is that Obama shouldn't have consulted with his teen-aged daughters to establish policy. And she's right: he shouldn't. Of course, Obama didn't set any policy, and didn't consult with his daughters to do so, but in general, she's right.

What he said was (and she even quotes him):

You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.

He even says, in the course of that, "for me, personally." It's opinion, not policy. And he mentioned his daughters in explaining how he reached that conclusion.

That's the way normal people think, Bristol. But then again, you are your mother's daughter, so I guess we can't expect logic out of you, can we?

I've got to say, though, that my favorite part would have to be this:

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids' worldview.

Gee, Miss Palin, you might think that you've just made a good point, but... well, I hate to bring this up, but do you remember a certain child named Tripp? You know, the bastard baby born out of wedlock to some tramp rich slut single mother and her high-school dropout babydaddy?

Yeah, I wonder if Tripp has seen his daddy in a while?

President Obama and Gay Marriage

After hearing the president's announcement of his personal support of  same-sex marriage, I just wanted to enjoy the president's positive statement. I figured that there would be affirmation and support for the president among progressives. Was I wrong!

PZ Myers post over at Pharyngula is an accurate reflection of the critiscism that the president is reaping from some progressives and some members of the LGBT community who feel that the president's statement was weak and insignificant. Myers writes:

That’s the best we’ve got from Obama? Seriously? It’s taken him this long to “evolve” to the point where he can take a personal (not even a political) stand on civil rights? 

What do people expect from this president? He has gone further than any president has before. What is there to be skeptical about? This was not a clever campaign move designed to garner votes. In taking this position he stands to lose some Black and Latino votes, two groups with numbers significant enough to make a difference in November. What he may gain from the LGBT vote will not be nearly enough in numbers to compensate for the votes that he stands to lose. I think that he did the right thing because it was the right thing to do.

But I am flabbergasted at some of the responses from his critics who identify with the progressive movement. Everything does not happen at once. During his administration, DADT has been repealed and cannot rear its ugly head again unless Congress passes another discriminatory law. Unlike what could have happened if he had merely ended DADT with an Executive Order that would have had limited authority for enforcement and that could have been easily rescinded by the next president without congressional approval.

Now he has taken a very public position on an issue that no president before him has ever addressed. What's the alternative position? Would you prefer that he have continued to say nothing? Exactly what nefarious reason could he have for making this declaration in favor of equality?

And the notion that his speaking out two or three years ago would have made any difference in North Carolina's recent vote to amend the state constitution to declare that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic union recognized in the state is ludicrous. This particular legislation has been proposed every legislative session for at least the last five years. NC joins 30 other states that have already passed similar constitutional amendments. The majority of voters still don't believe in same-sex marriage as evidenced by the 31 states where citizens came down firmly against safe-sex marriage by referendum. No other president has said a word about gay marriage and now this man finally speaks up and the whine is, it's not enough? Obama made history on Tuesday.

Obama has been in office less than four years and in those four years it seems that people expected him to undo the biases and prejudices that have been firmly entrenched in this culture for centuries. Myers and his allegedly progressive cohorts sound like petulant children and don't offer any constructive criticism, only complaints that Obama hasn't done enough. For the 100th time, presidents don't propose nor write legislation and an Executive Order is not a magic wand. Most of what the public believes can be done with an EO is based on a total misunderstanding of the scope of the president's power.

All of you who feel betrayed by President Obama, would you feel better if he hadn't addressed the issue at all? What's your plan for November? Quite a few critics of the president's statement in support of same-sex marriages also declared their intent not to give their vote to Obama in November. I can only assume that they somehow believe that helping Romney win the presidency will teach Obama and the Democrats a lesson. I think that this is what it means to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Think this is far fetched? Perhaps you missed the story from West Virginia about Tuesday's primary. Keith Judd, currently incarcerated in Texas, managed to get himself on the ballot for West Virginia's Democratic primary. Judd got 40% of the Democratic vote. It seems that 40% of Democrats cast their vote for Judd in order to to vote against President Obama. You can't make this stuff up. If we end up with a President Romney, there are a whole lot of people who are going o have some explaining to do.

President Obama and Marriage Equality

I haven't written a main post in a good long while, but I think today calls for one. Just got home from teaching and heard from the news that President Obama has endorsed marriage equality. Good for him! I think many people had long since become a bit tired of the president's "I'm evolving" rationale for not making this decision, but that annoyance should be put aside now.

The fact is, making a decision of this sort before an election took courage. It takes honor to announce a sound decision that could cost you some votes, and that's what the president did today. Sure, a number of people may be put off by it, but at the same time, it's the sort of thing you'd never expect Mitt Romney to do. People like leaders who have some you-be-damnedness in them. This decision enhances the contrast between Romney and Obama, and in that respect, it's damn good politics. He'll probably gain at least as many votes as he loses on this issue, and after all, the trend is towards consigning this controversy to the ash-heap of history where it belongs. But more importantly, President Obama can look into a mirror and see a man who had the decency not to punt forever on an issue that ought to matter to us all.

As we move towards the election, I'd ask fence sitters, why not ask yourself this question? Does Barack Obama look or sound like a one-termer to you? I don't see or hear a loser when I watch this man – he's got confidence, guts, and integrity.

Irony Supplements (updated)

So, according to Politico, Michele "Crazy-Eyes" Bachmann has applied for and been granted citizenship in Switzerland.

Marcus Bachmann, the congresswoman’s husband since 1978, reportedly was eligible for Swiss citizenship due to his parents’ nationality — but only registered it with the Swiss government Feb. 15. Once the process was finalized on March 19, Michele automatically became a citizen as well, according to Honegger.

Bachmann’s three youngest children are also now Swiss citizens, and her two older children are eligible to apply for a fast-track citizenship process, according to an email from the consulate provided and translated by Honegger.

Now, Mika (as I'm going to call her from now on) will undoubtedly be releasing a statement shortly about how she can't stand to see America destroyed by Barack Obama. But let's consider a few facts.

1. Michele Bachmann claims to hate "big government." The Swiss government, which combines a Parliament with some of the only "direct democracy" in the world, can be considered to encompass every citizen of the entire country. You don't get bigger than that.

2. Incidentally, remember Mika's complaint about Obama establishing "re-education camps"?

I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.

Every citizen of Switzerland must serve in the military, or a similar "mandatory service." Their fitness for service is reviewed, and of the one-third judged unfit to be sent to a military reeducation camp, a majority must do some other form of politically-correct service (which takes 50% more time to complete the mandatory duty) in fields such as healthcare, relief work, public welfare, agriculture: generally, you are helping your fellow Swiss, in a fully socialist way.

3. Although she will support the Swiss attitude toward illegal immigrants, her stand on making English the official language in America isn't going to pass muster: Switzerland has four official languages (German, French, Italian and Romansch), and about 10% of the population speaks another tongue (with Serbo-Croatian, Albanian, Portuguese and Spanish each having at least 8,000 more people speaking them than English does).

4. She doesn't support clean energy - aside from her stand on drilling for oil in every available inch of ground, she voted against enforcing limits for carbon dioxide emissions, and against tax credits for renewable energy sources. Switzerland, meanwhile, gets a majority of its energy from renewable sources, with less than 40% of their energy coming from nuclear power plants (which they're moving toward phasing out over the next few decades): the Swiss have been declared the greenest country in the world.

5. Although Mika has notably worked against and attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Switzerland has universal healthcare. Period.

6. Most importantly, Mika once called for an investigation into the patriotism of every other congress member. None of whom, except for her, claim allegiance to another country.

That is irony.

_____________________

Update (5/12/12): And then, on Thursday, she rushed out a statement saying "Oops! It was all a misunderstanding!" You know, unlike her previous statements that showed she knew exactly what she was doing.

"Congresswoman Bachmann's husband is of Swiss descent, so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family," said Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness.

The Minnesota congresswoman was interviewed by Swiss national public television in D.C. on Tuesday while with a group of Swiss parliamentarians.

"My husband is a 100 percent Swiss, and his parents were raised in Switzerland, they were married there, they came to the United States, they bought a farm in Wisconsin and raised their three sons there," said Bachmann.

Asked if she would run for office in Switzerland — as she is now eligible to do — Bachmann joked that the competition "would be very stiff because they are very good," referring to the parliamentarians behind her.

I imagine the Swiss government was relieved. On the other hand, hey! Who knew she read my stuff? Hi, Mika!

Hell, who knew she could read?

North Carolina Poised to Pass Anti-Civil Rights Legislation

Today, North Carolinians are going to the polls to vote on their fellow citizens' ability to enjoy the civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  And it appears, from what I've seen reported on the polling data, that the majority of the citizens of that state will vote to permanently imbed in their state's constitution a discriminatory law against a segment of their population.

It still amazes me that people, who otherwise are rational, would commit such an egregious act.  But this is the result of allowing people to pass Biblical judgement, rather than apply civil law, on other people's private lives.  And make no mistake, the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious texts that people, fired up by blind religious zeal, choose to apply, while ignoring other prohibitions.  I've yet to see any Bible Belt state propose a ban on working on the Sabbath, which not only is prohibited in their texts, but their god even allows the murder of one's neighbor, should one find him or her breaking this particular Biblical law.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - Holiness Codes - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" and "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death."  (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)


The reason for this encoding of discrimination in North Carolina's state constitution?  To protect the institution of marriage and the family!   This is nonsense, since the way to "protect" marriage is not to limit it, but to allow more of it.  If these monocratic intolerants were serious about their concern for the American family, they'd be passing state laws prohibiting divorce, not marriage between consenting adults.  But that will never happen, since the divorce rate is among the highest in the Bible Belt, and these hypocrites wouldn't want to take away that civil right.  What threatens family life is divorce, not marriages between people who love one another.

This nonsense of forcing people to live by a standard that religious zealots pick and choose from their Bible will, in some distant future, be considered ignorant, barbaric, and wholly anti-American.  But it is what our fellow gay and lesbian Americans, who want only the same rights enjoyed by all citizens, must suffer under--for now. 

For make no mistake, these dehumanizing and descriminatory laws will be overturned.

Shame on the states and the ignorant people in them who propose and pass such tyrannical religious acts.