Right-Wing Illeism

Has anyone else noticed the Republican presidential nominee frontrunners referring to themselves in the third person?

I always thought that was a sign of mental illness.

The Cusp of Revolution

As I sit here, I am reading an article about city officials jumping to use the deaths at or near Occupy Wall Street encampments as scapegoats to dismantle the camps even though, in the case of the shooting as opposed to the suicide, the people involved in the violence weren't linked to OWS at all. And while the suicide was tragic, explain to me why one man's suicide should mean dozens (if not hundreds) of other people should suddenly lose their right to protest?

As I read more, I also find that the common theme behind these evictions is the police have constantly been threatening arrests. And you know what I've noticed? Those threats mean dick to the protestors. Yes, they'll be arrested, but all the police will be doing is demonizing themselves in the public eye while they give the protestors a bed and a hot meal before releasing them to return to the damn protest.

In Portland, Oregon, just over 300 law enforcement officers from 10 different agencies were being faced down by better than 1,000 protestors. You know what this tells me? The cops should feel god damn lucky that the protestors are determined to remain peaceful because they outnumber the cops 3 to 1.

And the city governments keep paying lip service to the protestors. Here, let's see what they say, and then translate it into English:

While Adams expressed sympathy for protester goals, he said the Occupy movement needed to evolve beyond encampments "in order to get the kind of reforms we need."

Translation: You're embarrassing us and threatening our campaign donations.

In Oakland, California, the scene of previous clashes between police and demonstrators, city hall issued a third eviction notice on Sunday. It warned protesters they faced "immediate arrest" if they continued to camp out in the city's plaza and parks.

Translation: We don't like you, so we're gonna keep issuing impotent threats and preforming impotent actions because we were never told that it's a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The city offered alternative emergency accommodation at two local area homeless shelters, and laid on a shuttle service to one that was not within walking distance of the encampments.

Translation: We're so out of touch with what you're saying that we think you're all homeless, even though more OWS protestors are employed than Teabaggers.

In St. Louis, Mayor Francis Slay has warned protesters they have to decamp but has offered to continue talks to find a permanent place for the protest.

Translation: We'll find you a place to set up, so long as it is far, far away from the public eye because, after all: out of sight, out of mind.

When the city governments, owned and operated by the status quo, are fed up and trying to force the protestors away, then the protestors are doing something right. And when you have undercover OPD shills saying the Oakland Police Department has gone too far, and comparing the government's actions to what happened in Birmingham, Alabama, then you'll come to realize, as I have, that the United States is on the cusp of Revolution. Maybe not armed, maybe peaceful, maybe the kind of Revolution that comes with a whisper and not a bang, but we are on the cusp of Revolution right now, whether those in power want to admit it or not.

Whether we push forward into a full-blown Revolution, however, is up to us. We'll have to let history be the judge of this era.

No Money to Pay the Bills

So, I took a little break from my blog because...well...I'm lazy. But, at any rate, I came back on today.

Anyway, I won't have a great deal to say today, except to point out that we're so far in the shithole as far as money goes that at least one city in Michigan can't even pay its electric bill so they've resorted to ripping out street lights.

And the Republicans still won't allow a tax increase to get through.

Spent

On the FSTDT forums, the user Smurfette Principle posted a link to the browser game Spent. In this game you apply for a job that will put you below the poverty line. It'll give you a random daily choice with the ultimate goal of being able to make it through one month.

I've played it four times so far, only ran out of money once and the other three times I've ended the month with triple digit funds. Even though I'd be able to make it through the month three times out of four, it's enough to give you an insight into what it is like to try and make it not just month-to-month, but paycheck-to-paycheck.

People go a long time without needed medical treatment, proper food or housing and basic necessities. Back in the '50's, the idolized time for Republicans, there was a 90% tax rate on the top earners and people lived.

These days, there's a 34% tax rate on the top earners and people can't even survive.

Florida's Welfare Drug Testing Halted

A law in Florida would have required anyone on welfare to submit to drug testing. The law, however, was blocked by a Federal judge.

Gov. Rick Scott, who signed the measure into law on May 31, touted it as a way to ensure taxpayer money isn’t “wasted” on those who use drugs. “Hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs,” he said then.

But, in her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state’s argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove “special needs” as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.

“If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need,” Scriven wrote, “the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment.”

This is one of those things you'd expect the people who crafted the law to maybe give some thought to before drafting and passing it. Maybe, just maybe, being poor isn't reason enough to force needy people to piss into a cup.

But then again, that is the kind of mentality that views being impoverished as a crime. This is what they spend your tax dollars on.

Teabaggers Getting Their Lily White Panties in a Bunch

It seems now that the Teabaggers are still huffing and puffing over the Wall Street Protests. Every 'bagger from Glenn Beck to Rand Paul are swarming and eager to paint OWS as a bunch of violent, radical hippies/Commie/Nazis. And we've even got that little pinhead Eric Cantor calling the protest a "mob." I guess only the Teabaggers are allowed to protest things they view as unjust. But what I want to focus on is the vast, vast difference in how these two movements have been treated by the establishment. And there is one picture that can do that best:

Unions and Why We Need Them

Trade Guild, Collective Bargaining Association; a Union by any other name. Whatever you want to call it, we still need them even in this day and age, regardless of what anyone says.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which led to the formation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has been around for 41 years now and it was tasked with a simple premise; ensure health and safety rules are followed in the workplace. If businesses don't follow these rules, OSHA can seek criminal penalties against the CEO's. So how has this worked out? Frankly, it's laughable.

OSHA has come under considerable criticism for the ineffectiveness of its penalties, particularly its criminal penalties. OSHA is only able to pursue a criminal penalty when a willful violation of an OSHA standard results in the death of a worker. The maximum penalty is a misdemeanor with a maximum of 6-months in jail. In response to the criticism, OSHA, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, has pursued several high-profile criminal prosecutions for violations under the Act, and has announced a joint enforcement initiative between OSHA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has the ability to issue much higher fines than OSHA. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats, labor unions and community safety and health advocates are attempting to revise the OSH Act to make it a felony with much higher penalties to commit a willful violation that results in the death of a worker. Some local prosecutors are charging company executives with manslaughter and other felonies when criminal negligence leads to the death of a worker.

During its more than 30 years of existence, OSHA has secured only 12 criminal convictions.

Some people believe that OSHA's all we need to protect worker rights. Those people are dead wrong. Others think that Unions had a place back during the Industrial Revolution, but those times are behind us so Unions are obsolete/outdated. Those people aren't just wrong, they're dangerously wrong.

Corporations are not people; they do not learn from their mistakes or feel empathy for those they wronged. They are entities with one goal: Make More Money. That is it, all things are second to the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar and they are very often run by psychopaths. If you think Unions aren't needed and that corporations have empathy then ask yourself why Dead Peasant Insurance Policies exist.

In the corporate practice dubbed "Dead Peasants" life insurance, companies wager on employees' lives, expecting to make money when they die.

And it's pervasive, said Mike Myers, an attorney who has uncovered many of these cases and helped angry relatives sue.

"Life insurance is traditionally used to guard against the death of breadwinners. This is an investment scheme," he said.

Dozens of blue chip companies have these policies, according to Myers. But only banks are forced to reveal them, and several have billions of dollars worth of policies.

"The driving force behind it is the tax deductions," he said.

In the corporate practice dubbed "Dead Peasants" life insurance, companies wager on employees' lives, expecting to make money when they die.

The life insurance policies were designed to allow companies to insure a few crucial executives. Savvy companies then realized they could also get a tax break by insuring many lower-level employees.

The financial scheme doesn't actually cost the employees anything, except, some say, their trust.

Still don't think Unions are needed in this day and age? What is the differences between these photos:








And these pictures:









Any ideas? If you said "Time and distance" then you're right. If you said "The fact that we'd NEVER let that happen here in THIS day and age like it does overseas!" then congratulations; you're dangerously wrong.

Republicans are working to weaken or abolish child labor laws in at least two states, one of which is Missouri.

Cunningham views Missouri’s laws, which limit the number of hours young people can work and ban them from working past 9 p.m., as an intrusion on parent’s rights.

Actually, they are a help to parents. Without those restrictions, you have a scenario in which Susie, 13, is working at a sub shop. She has homework and she’s supposed to get off at 8 p.m., but the shift manager needs her to stay and close up because Fred didn’t show up for work. Susie calls her mom, who protests, but the boss is adamant and Susie really wants to keep her job so mom agrees, just this once. And pretty soon “just this once” becomes the routine.

I have watched this happen with a 16-year-old, and only the labor laws keep employers from demanding unreasonable service from the under-16 workforce.

Oh, but that Missouri loony's bill is just an isolated incident, isn't it? Haha, no.

Maine State Rep. David Burns is the latest of many Republican lawmakers concerned that employers aren’t allowed to do enough to exploit child workers:

LD 1346 suggests several significant changes to Maine’s child labor law, most notably a 180-day period during which workers under age 20 would earn $5.25 an hour.

The state’s current minimum wage is $7.50 an hour.

Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, is sponsoring the bill, which also would eliminate the maximum number of hours a minor over 16 can work during school days.

Burns’ bill is particularly insidious, because it directly encourages employers to hire children or teenagers instead of adult workers. Because workers under 20 could be paid less than adults under this GOP proposal, minimum wage workers throughout Maine would likely receive a pink slip as their twentieth birthday present so that their boss could replace them with someone younger and cheaper.

And Burns is just one of many prominent Republicans who believe that America’s robust protections against the exploitation of children are wrongheaded:

• Maine State Sen. Debra Plowman (R) introduced a separate bill that would extend the number of hours employers can require a minor to work. Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) backs this proposal.
• Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) delivered a lengthy lecture where he claimed that federal child labor laws violate the Constitution. His Republican colleagues in the Senate rewarded him with a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee — the committee with jurisdiction over constitutional questions.
• Missouri State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R) introduced a bill which would “eliminate[] the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed.”
• Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s (R) most recent brief attacking the Affordable Care Act relies heavily on a discredited Supreme Court decision striking down a federal child labor law that was overruled decades ago.
• Judges Roger Vinson and Henry Hudson, the two outlier judges who struck down the ACA, also relied heavily on this discredited anti-child labor decision in their decisions.

The only reason why these things are (mostly) in the past for the USA is because of strong Labor Unions fighting for better pay and conditions. You want to eliminate Unions? Don't be surprised to see rows of 12 year old kids working for below minimum wage in abhorrent environments.

Don't think it can happen in the USA? It can and it will without Unions.

Ahh, Kids; I Love How They Know Everything

When I was just popping into my teenage years, I remember being very, very upset when I would have some good advice or knowledge but adults would write me off out of hand just because of my age. I hated that, it constantly made me feel as though I didn't matter and that no one cared what I had to say just because I was young. After all, youth obviously equals stupidity in their eyes. As I got older, I promised myself that if anyone had something to say; advice, wisdom, a quote, whatever, then I would not form my opinion based on their age. And to that end, I have been very successful. So I can say with honesty, I have not formed my opinion of this person because she is young; I have formed my opinion because the things she's saying are fucking retarded.

If you've been following Occupy Wall Street then you've probably seen this girl; the 13-year old girl who's telling the dirty hippies they should have gotten a "useful degree" (even though many of them did) and to get a job at McDonald's and to live beneath their means. I'd rather not post a picture of her just because I don't want it on my blog; click the link if you want to see but I've pretty much summed it up.

At any rate, it seems she's back and bitching once again. It seems now she's pissed off at all of us unwashed liberals for daring to criticize her (and to be fair, if people were making violent threats: not cool, people, not cool) and she's also telling all of us poor ignorant folks that if we have time to trespass in a private park (that was created through negations with the city and is, in fact, a publicly accessible park) then we obviously have time to work. And she seems to wants to "take this country back!" Gee, how far back do you think she wants to take the USA?

Do you think she knows that people are protesting in pretty much all 50 states? And that the reason they have time to protest is because they can't find a fucking job? Do you think she knows that on average there are 6.3 applicants for every job opening? Do you think she cares, or do you think she's enjoying being a republican shill?

Also, she seems to have a real hate-on for Apple products. I'm a PC guy myself, but seriously, what gives? I can find all sorts of apple stuff on Craig's List for around $125 to $400 bucks; a lot of people can afford that.

I know that at the age of 13 a lot of people are forming their own opinions, but I can't help but think she's just parroting her conservative parents' talking points.

Fun With Math

Hey kids, wanna see something fun! Pull out your calculators, get a #2 pencil and a sheet of paper and use the graph on the blackboard here:


Now for the problem: In the lowest paid non-agricultural field of work, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the "Leisure and Hospitality" industry. The average weekly worker pay there in September 2011 was $343.95 dollars. Using the table above, what is the average weekly pay for a CEO in the Leisure and Hospitality industry?

If you said $163,376.25 a week, you get an A+ and a feeling of seething anger at the inequality (assuming you're not a deluded conservative). But, okay, let's say that is a worst case scenario. Let me switch charts:

From AFL-CIO:



Now, let's try this problem using the same $343.95 dollar base, shall we? If your second answer is $117,974.85 a week for the CEO, you get another A+, a gold star and a handful of Goldfish crackers that you're probably too poor to afford.

Lower or Higher Standard of Living?

Shortly after I woke up I hopped onto YIM and checked my mail when I noticed one of the articles was entitled: "Unemployed seek protection against job bias". The article itself was talking about how many companies, when looking at applicants for a job opening, will automatically discard any one of them who is either unemployed or has been unemployed for longer than 6 months. This is not something that is unheard of for me, I've known for a while that this is fairly common practice and it seems to be so well known that President Obama has even included a provision in his jobs bill that would ban companies from excluding the unemployed when considering applications. But that is actually just background for the real thing I want to address in this post.

A while back I heard someone asking in confusion about the general attitudes of the common person during the Wisconsin protests; "Why" they asked, "is it that when they hear about union and government employees making X amount of money an hour and get Y days off and Z benefits that instead of demanding equal treatment by their own private sector employers they instead demand union and government employees to take cuts?"

It was a question that I couldn't answer. I puzzled over it for a long while and honestly, I could never find any answer that didn't sound like some variation of "Fuck the right wing." I didn't want another outlet for my contempt of most things conservative, I wanted a real damn answer. Eventually I gave up and put it out of my mind. Until today.

When reading the Associated Press article linked to above, I made the mistake of looking at the comments. I'd almost forgotten that YahooNews has become a bastion of right-wing knuckle draggers. As I was reading, quite a few of the comments were, surprisingly, agreeable. And then I found one from the user 1Spirit;

The point I am trying to make in my post is that we, the unemployed, are trying to hit a mercurial moving target in regards to jobs in our respective ares of expertise. Yes, we can
accept a jobs below our personal income requirements but, this only slows the ratcheting down of our standards of living. The probability of losing our homes, our marriages are only minimally diminished. Many, if not most of us, will still have thousands of dollars in student loans to pay for to which have no effective value. Collectively, this affects us all through the cascade effect.

This actually strikes me as quite a reasonable post. Why should we, the majority of America, have to sacrifice our standard of living so the richest fuckers out there can keep hoarding their cash? And why should we be excluded from employment because we can't find work in an economy where 65 year-old's are still working full time and unemployment is still hovering around 9%? And then I find some oh-so intelligent [/sarcasm] replies to this post.

Jim
Your standard of living? Are you kidding me. You are worried about the pride of losing your standard of living.Get out there and get a job and take care of your family. If they don't have a job in your area, move. You do what you have to to take care of your family you idiot. You lazy moron, get out there and go to work. Do anything you can. Businesses hire people that are willing to do what ever it takes. I delivered pizzas when I had to. My son told me the other day, Dad, you taught me a valuable lesson with that. The pride is in taking care of your family. You can't accept a job that is below your personal income requirements. You lazy sot. And your spouse buys that crap? I paid every dime of my son's tuition and housing because I worked second jobs. I had yard sales, I did what it took because that is who I am. You are part of what is wrong with this nation now, it does not meet your personal income requirements and ratchets down your standard of living. You moron. You voted for Obama didn't you.

Charles B
Took a job that pays less than 1/2 of what I was used to being paid.... it is a regular paycheck.

I then cut out completely ANY AND ALL entertainment expense. I no longer have steak for Dinner (maybe 1 X /month). There is about 50X of ground beef in the feezer, and some chicken breast.
Before I lost my job and took the new one, I hadn't had a hamburger at home in ayear.... Now it is on the table 3 of 5 nights, disguised as manwich or salsbury steak..... or tacos or what have you.

SO I stepped down on all of my standards of living to be able to SUPPORT MY FAMILY!

I have "NO" sympathy for any of you that will not take something less to delay to lowering of the standard of living. GROW UP..... HAVE PRIDE.... ANS SUPPORT YOURSELF. We went from a 4 BR 3BA home that had 4.5 acres of land to a 3 BR 2 BA home that looks like a shack.... and well... it protects us from the elements. BUT WE DID IT!

BTW; I have TWO DEGREES.... and I am working in a field that only mildly corresponds to one of them..... BUT I AM WORKING!!!!! Adapt and overcome- stop being a poor pitiful pearl that expects others to supply your life's needs. YOU ARE AN AMERICAN.... You have the opportunity to succeed and fail.... now that you have had the failure, pull up your pants get on your shoes, and get back up on that first rung and begin moving back up...... IT CAN BE DONE BY EVERYONE BUT THE ENTITLED!
Stop hating those who have made it (RIch)- Stop demanding that they pay more so that you can continue to work less....... GET UP AND REACH FOR IT.... expect many steps, expect to have to give things up, expect to have to struggle.... expect to wonder what is happening next week...... but above all do not allow the government to take away that freedom!

Kevin E
I gotta cut my standard of living! Oh noes! Really? Well here's a dose of reality for you, sometimes when times get rough you have to cut out things that aren't necessary so you make ends meet until you can afford the luxuries. That's the problem with Americans today, they can't make cuts themselves and survive without nanny government to look out for them.

Ilona
The good jobs are long gone sorry that is the reality right now, get off your high horse and work a crappy job like most everyone else does before they all disappear too. maybe good jobs will return maybe not, whining won't help

I read these and went off to get dinner started. As I was heading to the kitchen I has a eureka moment. People don't want to admit that they are being taken advantage of. To see others who are fairly well off but not in the top 5% of income earners seems to gall them. Another person who is doing fairly well off but by no means rich seems to be an insult to those who're pissed off at their crappy job but can't seem to grow the stones needed to demand better conditions.

This is the sort of thing I find to be not only really sad, but is also an insight into why people will actively vote against their own interests by, among other things, supporting union busting legislation.

Burn Bright and Flicker Out

According to The Daily Beast by way of Yahoor News, it seems that the rage that has driven the Teabaggers so far is fizzling out. This alone is enough to make me laugh, and when all is said and done, I'm not surprised. On another forum I frequent, a member there by the name of Sandman made a very concise and, to my opinion, insightful post explaining why the Tea Party as it stands now will not last. Well written as it is, I want to call attention to the third reason he gives:

Reason 3: It is a political movement based on anger.

You can get a lot of stuff done in politics when you get people pissed off at something. What you can't do is maintain that long term. Political motivation by anger is a lot like shock comedy, you have to keep topping yourself in order to keep the momentum going. What all shock comedians eventually discover, and what the Tea Party will eventually discover, is that you can't keep escalating things forever. Eventually you will get to the point where you simply can't go any further without appearing genuinely insane even to the most hardened of your followers, and the momentum falls apart.

In order to keep the anger-momentum going, the Tea Party has been reduced to incitement, exaggeration, and bald-faced lies to keep people pissed. Everything from "death-panels" to Obama "not being born in the USA" to Obama is a "socialist" to the blatant lie that Americans are being taxed to death. None of it is true, but that doesn't matter. The Tea Party "leaders" don't even care if these things are true, that's not the point. The point is that these lies can be used to keep the rank-and-file Tea Party member frothing at the mouth with righteous fury.

The Tea Party is based on anger, and while this is effective in the short-term, is impossible to maintain in the long run.

Shortly after that, another member, gyeonghwa, was kind enough to share an article he found on the New York Times.

But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent. Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

More and more I am seeing signs that the Teabaggers are ringing their own death knell. They're trying to go in a direction that the majority of Americans don't want, and a lot of the people who voted for them didn't realize. But what I fear right now is the damage they'll inflict before they finally flicker and die. Do I think they're malicious? Not intentionally. Do I think they're mentally unhinged? The evidence is getting more difficult to ignore.

Consider for a moment this article from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

A new Tea Party group in Florida is boldly going where no Tea Parties have gone before – space.

Tea Party in Space, an offshoot of the South Florida Tea Party, is, of all things, pushing to end the government’s supposed monopoly on space exploration.

“Our goal is nothing less than the expansion of American civilization into the solar system,” says the group’s platform. “We must return to traditional American free-market principles to expand permanently into space.”

Tea Party in Space is complaining that, as its founder Andrew Gasser said, “NASA is being forced to fund programs that are behind schedule and ridiculously over budget.” But that’s not all. Gasser sees a great ideological principle here: “It is socialism when you have the government coming down and saying, ‘this is what we want to build, and this is how we want you to build it.’”

According to Tea Party in Space logic, the Erie Canal, Hoover Dam, our national highway system, and Mount Rushmore are all just examples of unnecessary government socialism.

Of course, Tea Party in Space has a rock-solid standard bearer, proudly noted in its “Core Values”: “I am a child of Ronald Regan [sic], Ronaldus Magnus. ”

Houston, we have a problem.

As NASA recounted in its statement in honor of Reagan’s death in 2004, “President Reagan spoke … about how the shuttles were the modern day equivalent of the Yankee Clipper ships that opened new horizons for our young nation.” In his 1984 State of the Union Address, the statement continues, Reagan “announced plans for a permanent human presence in space with the construction of a space station, and he tasked NASA to including the international community to be part of a project designed for the benefit of everyone on Earth.”

But it seems the intellectual disconnect doesn't end at the Final Frontier. Teabagger and GOP favorite (and sane person's favorite chimp) Michelle Bachmann has shown us that there is an aspect of ignorant and malicious thinking when she made it a point to block anti-gay bullying legislation for public schools in her district. The result of that? Let Mother Jones tell you:

The first was TJ. Then came Samantha, Aaron, Nick, and Kevin. Over the past two years, a total of nine teenagers have committed suicide in a Minnesota school district represented by Rep. Michele Bachmann—the latest in May—and many more students have attempted to take their lives. State public health officials have labeled the area a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate.

Some of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish. Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent on the tragic deaths that have roiled her district—including the high school that she attended.

Bachmann, who began her political career as an education activist, has described gay rights as an "earthquake issue," and she and her allies have made public schools the front lines of their fight against the "homosexual agenda." They have opposed efforts in the state to promote tolerance for gays and lesbians in the classroom, seeing such initiatives as a way of allowing gays to recruit impressionable youths into an unhealthy and un-Christian lifestyle.

Later on, we get this:

As civil rights groups have pushed the Minnesota school district to do more to increase tolerance of LGBT students, conservative religious groups fought to keep them away from public schools. After Samantha's suicide and several others, students in Anoka-Hennepin schools participated in the Day of Silence. The event, organized by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, encourages kids to remain silent for the day in recognition of the effect of anti-gay bullying and harassment. In response, religious activists took up the "Day of Truth" an event championed by the "ex-gay ministry" Exodus International that's usually held the day before the Day of Silence. Students who participated were encouraged to engage their classmates in discussions of homosexuality from a Christian perspective.

Fifteen-year-old Justin Aaberg appears to have been one of the targets of this initiative. One day last year Justin came home and told his mom, Tammy, that another student had told him he would to go to hell because he was gay. "That did something to his brain," she says. He hanged himself in his bedroom last summer. Only after his suicide did Tammy learn that the Parents Action League had reportedly worked with area churches to hand out T-shirts promoting the "Day of Truth" to students at his high school (which is also Bachmann's alma mater). The students were also instructed to "preach to the gay kids," Aaberg says. (No one from the Parents Action League responded to a request for comment.)

A favorite cry of these people has been "What about the children?!" Well, the children are killing themselves because they're not accepted for who they are and you're not just doing nothing to change that, you're obstructing efforts to reach out to these kids.

These are the sorts of things I am talking about. I have no doubt that the Teabaggers will die out, likely they'll fade into a distant memory as the Baby Boomers start dying off. But I am scared, very scared, of what they will do before then.

Fight for the Future or Watch NASCAR?

The following is a repost from an entry I made on the IrregularTimes guestbook.

---

I'm quirky. I'm one of those rare and elusive creatures known to anthropologists as a Gun Toting Liberal (guntotus liberus).

Something I have wanted for years is to own an AR-15 rifle but I have never been in a financial position to acquire one of my own. Hopefully, I would be able to build one from one of the many kits available online. My financial position recently changed and I ordered a stripped AR-15 lower receiver online and then waited for the company to ship it to my local FFL dealer so I could fill out the forums and have my background checked and be all legal.

This was happening during the debt ceiling debate, during which I saw the Teabaggers on capitol hill basically taking America hostage and threatening to kill said hostage. As the days turned into weeks of this, I occasionally found myself thinking: "I better hurry up and build that AR-15 before these idiots destroy the economy and I have to end up shooting things for food."

Well, they didn't blow Uncle Sam's head off, thanks to Obama snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not long ago, I put in an order for a full length AR-15 kit and am waiting for it to be shipped. Now, I've taken the time to look at these people, their actions, their mentality, their goals and I find myself thinking; "I better hurry up and build that AR-15 before these fuckers trigger the civil war they want so badly."

And then I remember Americans are too apathetic to actually take up arms, so I go look at what else is on TV.

Teabagger Default

I've been hearing a lot of talk about how the Teabaggers actually want the government to default on it's debts rather than raise taxes on the rich. And if they do raise taxes in one spot, they better cut them in another so government revenue stagnates. And you know what?

I hope they get the default they want. I hope the Republicans keep screaming No and the government defaults for the first time in history. And then I hope these old, wrinkly, shriveled up prunes see their social security checks stop coming, their medicare stops getting paid for, their disability checks dry up. I want to see them suddenly stripped of all these government programs they take for granted and are left flapping in the breeze by the same party they'll support until their dying, oxygen-tanked breath escapes their bearded lips as the Republican bus runs them over.

And then I'll laugh as they blame Obama.

Read My Lips! New Taxes!

So, it looks like Republican leader Boner Boehner and the rest of the Reich Wing are going to stomp their feet and hold their breath and allow the government to go into default to prove...what? That spending is out of control? That we "can't afford" new taxes? That they are somehow anything other than a hollow shell of their once touted "Fiscal Responsibility" former selves? And isn't saying that we "can't afford new taxes" like saying "I'm dying of thirst, so don't give me any water"?

It's well known that the goal in spending cuts has been knocked back from $4 Trillion to around $2 Trillion but every time the Democrats try to kick up taxes a little bit, the Republicans swell up with a Holier Than Thou morality and refuse to even consider it without more spending cuts. Now they're wanting to pick away at Medicare and Social Security.

My question is, where was this morality when funding the wars overseas came up? Those always got rubber stamps. In fact, any time the military asks for more money then it gets a rubber stamp. Hell, the Marines have asked Congress to kill development funding for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and when Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed with them, the Republicans fought it. The EFV is a concept dating back to the '80's and didn't start getting underway until the '90's. It is a concept who's time has come and gone, the Military knows the EFV is something that was conceived of during the Cold War and designed when computers were in their adolescence. The simple fact is that it has no purpose on a battlefield in 2011 and if that weren't bad enough, it was projected to cost $15.9 billion dollars a unit. Why would the party of "fiscal responsibility" and "spending cuts" want to fight that cancellation?

And why are Republicans now acting like raising the debt ceiling is some kind of unthinkable notion when they voted to raise it 19 times and actually got it raised 7 times. So, who pays for Republican short-sightedness? It seems we will with yet another recession. Of course, you know what else we can do to avoid this? Eliminate the fucking tax breaks for the rich that the Republicans kicked and screamed for until they got. Without those, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad a situation as we are now. Or maybe, ya know, just returning taxes to what they were under Clinton? Or taxing luxury items, like yachts and things of that sort?

You know, I think the Republicans do, in fact, hate America.

Shallow Voting

There are a whole list of reasons to vote for or against a political candidate. For example, if they have a voting record you don't agree with, or if their ideals strike you as close to the ones you hold, or even if (and I dislike this reason) you perceive them as the lesser of two evils.

Now, while I can't say I know a whole lot about about his ideals and voting history (because I don't know of either), at this stage, I've probably found the most shallow reason ever to vote against a candidate. I am talking about Republican presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter.



I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who looks that much like Vladimir Putin.



I told you it was shallow, didn't I?

Florida and the 19th Amendment

Wow. Florida, thank you for making Oklahoma seem a little less fucked in the head.

According to the Angry Black Lady Chronicles via the Miami Herald, the Florida legislature introduced HB 1355. They claim it's to help strengthen election laws but if you actually care enough to take a little peek at the text of the bill, you'll find a couple of interesting tid-bits, such as:

Any voter who has moved and shows up at a polling site with evidence of the new address would also be forced to use a provisional ballot even though county elections supervisors now have access to a statewide voter database, created back in 2003, that can easily confirm a voter’s change of name or address.

Why would they have that little part in the bill if it wasn't to try and screw potential voters. This part really isn't that new, considering I believe Illinois has tried this at least once before (according to at least one bit of anecdotal evidence, I recall reading something more reliable a while back, but I can't seem to find it). Another part that is rather disturbing is:

Volunteers, who now can help resolve legal issues for individual voters at the polls, would be restricted because the bill lumps “legal advice” into the definition of solicitation and prohibits it within 100 feet of a voting line.

Cast your minds back to Florida's 2000 Elections and tell me this is a good idea. You'll get a cookie if you can do it with a straight face. But the part of this that rubs against the 19th Amendment is this:

A newly married woman wanting to vote on Election Day would no longer be allowed to show elections officials at the polls documentation with her name change to vote on that day. Instead, she would be forced to use a provisional ballot, which likely will mean that vote won’t be counted. In 2008, half the provisional ballots in Florida were thrown out, making it hard to contest.

They have singled out women for a law that restricts their ability to vote based on their gender and martial status. Don't believe me? Read the Nineteenth Amendment for yourself and paw attention to it.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Shall not be denied or abridged. That is exactly what this law does and it is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. But, honestly, from what I have seen of the Republicans in the last two years, I can't really say I'm surprised. Their ability to piss all over the Constitution is unmatched by any other political party.

Government Hands on your Medicare

Cast your minds back to not that long ago, back when Healthcare Reform was struggling to be passed; back when as soon as it passed Republicans were chanting "Kill the Bill" and teabaggers were shouting "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

You do remember that, don't you, teabaggers? "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"? You remember how you took that to the voting booths and elected good Republican/teabagger representatives to office so they'd kill the bill and keep their government hands off your Medicare? Welp, guess what, kids? You've been played like a fiddle. They whipped you up into a scared, angry, blind stupor, sent you to the voting booths, and are now putting their government hands on your Medicare.

Remember when King Shrub II wanted to slash funding for public schools and instead give out vouchers for private schools? Well, it seems Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to do the same thing...only this time, by cutting funding for Medicare and replacing it with government vouchers for private insurance plans. Oh, but don't worry! See, unlike minimum wage, these vouchers will rise with inflation. Uhh...oops. It also seems that the cost of private insurance is rising a lot faster than that, so those vouchers will eventually be next to worthless.

Why are they putting their government hands on your Medicare? Why, do deal with the deficit, of course! What's that? We could have dealt with the deficit to pretty much the same levels if you'd let the Bush-era tax cuts expire? Surely you jest! Why, one day you'll join the ranks of the super wealthy through hard work and boot straps and you don't want to have to pay your taxes like the serfs you once were! Why, it's the American dream!

That's right, grandpa, it's the American Dream, but we live in the American Reality. The gap between the rich and the middle class is wider now than it ever was and you, my dear Teabagger in your Rascal and toting your oxygen tank, are in your twilight years. You've lived your life as a serf, you'll die as a serf. The only question remaining now is; do you want to support people who are going to do everything in their power to make sure the poor stay poor and the rich get richer and who will ensure your grandchildren will live in poverty for the sum of their lives as soon as they get the chance? Are you really going to let your irrational fear of the evil Big Government blind you and leave you easily manipulated by those who value you only as a tool to use for their own agenda?