Former South Carolina Governor, and famed Appalachian Trail hiker, Mark Sanford is running for Congress! But that, of course, is not what brings him to the blog. He is following the GOP meme of trying to debate fictional Democrats, whether it is Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention talking to an empty chair or now Mark Sanford trying to debate a cardboard cutout of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Governor, she's never going to answer your questions so stop pausing for "her" to answer. She's cardboard. It really does demonstrate that many Republicans simply do not understand what the Democrats are saying. They argue and rail against a boogeyman that doesn't exist. The empty chair is a great example of this. If they would listen and actually participate in a dialogue, maybe something would finally get done.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible were on probation for the 2009 death of their child after he became sick and they refused to take him to the doctor. They prescribe to a Christian sect that believes in faith healing and have not been to a doctor themselves in a long time. They lost their 8-month-old son last week after he was suffering from diarrhea and breathing problems for over a week.
Faith healing doesn't work, medical science does. This is simply a fact and the conditions that the children died from were very treatable. The boy who died in 2009 suffered from coughing, congestion, crankiness and a loss of appetite.
The parents are grieving, and I'm sure it is genuine. I don't think anyone would argue that their feelings are not real. However, in cases like this, the argument needs to be brought up: Why to we give religion a pass often when they believe silly things?
Authorities are waiting to press charges until after the autopsy of the child but they will be charged with something. But what is the appropriate level they should be charged? Is it manslaughter because they didn't mean to kill their son? Is it child neglect? I don't think prayer can be considered adequate attention to the child's health. Maybe it will be a combination of charges.
There is no excuse for these beliefs in 2013. This couple killed their son, end of story. Their inaction is inexcusable and should be punished. They certainly demonstrate that Christian fundamentalism is alive and well in America.
Folks in Benton County, Arkansas are unhappy that their State Legislators approve the expansion of Medicaid in their state as part of Obamacare. Emotions are so high that columnist Chris Nogy wrote in a newsletter that his fellow Republicans might want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights on some legislators.
"So what do we do? While I believe that we as a party are done in Arkansas after this, if there is ANY hope of our survival, it is going to take not being forgiving. Not only for past actions, but to show those who will come in the future that the cost of failure to do the thing they were elected to do will be significant. We need to be making a point of this failure from this moment on. We need to make a public statement from our groups that we no longer support those who turned on us, that we will NOT be working to their re-election, that we will be actively seeking replacements, and perhaps even working towards recall. We as the Party have to stand up and say ‘no more – you were given a job, you campaigned on the promise to do this job, you had the ability to do this job, you had the votes each time to do this job, and yet for no legitimate reason you betrayed the trust put in you by the electorate and you are now completely and permanently politically finished.’
We need to let those who will come in the future to represent us that we are serious. The 2nd amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives. It seems that we are unable to muster that belief in any of our representatives on a state or federal level, but we have to have something, something costly, something that they will fear that we will use if they step out of line. If we can’t shoot them, we have to at least be firm in our threat to take immediate action against them politically, socially, and civically if they screw up on something this big. Personally, I think a gun is quicker and more merciful, but hey, we can’t."
This metaphor is used way too often by the GOP. Sarah Palin enjoyed encouraging her supporters by saying, "don't retreat, reload." Her website also had a map:
One of those targets over Arizona was Rep. Gabby Giffords' district. Giffords is, if you don't remember, the Congresswoman who took a bullet to the head, in 2011, after a gunman opened fire at one of her outdoor rallies in her district. In addition to wounding the Congresswoman, 17 people were shot and 6 died. The youngest victim was a 9-year-old girl. Is it coincidence that the gunman targeted her and didn't get the idea from Palin's website? Perhaps. But there is a big problem with even suggesting constituents kill their lawmakers. That is not how our system works. The 2nd Amendment was not written to stop more people from having health coverage.
In 2010, Sharron Angle ran against Harry Reid for Senate in Nevada and seemed to suggest that violence might be the answer in case she didn't win the election. I say "seemed to suggest" because she refused to answer questions about what she meant by "second amendment remedies."
These are only a few examples but they are not isolated incidents. This rhetoric is used all the time in politics and predominantly on the Right. It needs to stop because sometimes it can be taken seriously and people get hurt. There are much more constructive ways to make a point. If you cannot make your point without making a gun metaphor, perhaps you need to open a thesaurus.
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) joined Rep. Steve King (R_IA) in his blaming the Boston bombing on immigrants or people "that look Hispanic." He and other conservatives are claiming that the Boston bombing is a reason why immigration reform needs to be delayed.
“We have seen this in Israel,” Gohmert said of the Boston attacks and recalled visiting areas that had been struck by suicide bombers. “Finally the Israeli people said this is enough. They built a fence and the rest is a wall to prevent snipers from telling their kids. They finally stopped the domestic violence from people that wanted to destroy them. I am concerned we need to do that as well.”
“We know Al Qaeda has camps on the Mexican border,” he said. “We have people that are trained to act Hispanic when they are radical Islamists.”
How do you know this? Where is the evidence? It would seem like you are just saying this to blow that racist dog-whistle for your constituents.
I would put money on it being done by a white, right-wing extremist.
Thank you, Texas, for sending this idiot to Congress.
Last fall, Rep. Michele Bachmann held onto her seat in Congress despite Democratic challenger Jim Graves' efforts. Now, Graves wants a rematch in 2014. "A lot of people come up to me and say we're kind of embarrassed by our representation in Washington," he has said. "People are tired of her antagonistic, propagating gridlock."
It is true that she is one of the most polarizing members of the House of Representatives. I thought I would throw together some of the most ridiculous things she has said/done in the past few years.
Michele Bachmann on Homosexuals:
Bachmann doesn't understand Obamacare:
I wish Jim Graves luck in 2014. We need to get her out of Congress.
I thought South Carolina was the crazy Carolina but it seems North Carolina wants to give them a run for their money.
North Carolina is trying to establish a state religion. You read that right. They don't care that this is obviously against the first amendment.
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The measure is supported by nine Republicans in the Legislature. They introduced this after a lawsuit took issue with Rowan county committee meetings opening with, way more often than not, an obviously Christian prayer.
They claim that they can pass this legislation because of that first word in the amendment: Congress. And they are right in that the way the amendment is written, it would not be applied to North Carolina. They also claim that the Tenth Amendment, which gives the states the rights to do things if the Constitution does not address it, does not stop them from establishing a religion. The bill itself states that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and does not stop states from passing any law that defies any part of the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ok, ok, let's say I'm on board with all that. It does not really mention anything about the establishment clause. If only there were something that would explicitly state that the first amendment... no, it needs to be more specific than that... the establishment clause itself...
Everson v. Board of Education, (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law.
WOW, look at that! The issue has already been addressed! I mean as long as it isn't before 1947...nope, I checked the calendar and we're good. North Carolina can breathe a sigh of relief and not waste their time on a rehashing of previously decided case law. But we all know they won't.
This follows a trend of Republican led legislatures in Red states of proposing, and sometimes passing, ridiculously illegal laws. I have covered some of these laws in relation to gun control here on the blog. I really do not understand how they can continue with stuff like this. Nullification, of which this is a cousin, cannot and will not stand.
Maybe for fun the federal government should turn North Carolina loose, just as an example to the other states. I really don't think they've thought it through.
Sarah Palin recently posted on Facebook, like all serious political people do, a response to the President visiting Israel last week.
Here is her post:
As always, one must listen carefully to what leadership says, or fails to say, in analyzing current affairs. During his trip to Israel, President Obama said, “It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own.” Of course, as people of good will we would like everyone to have the right of self-determination and God-given liberty, but we also have to ask ourselves what has been done to establish the circumstances necessary for that. It’s been observed that a Palestinian child cannot grow up “in a state of her own” because of Palestinian leaders’ decisions.
There seems to be nothing on the horizon to change the mindset of those who would raise Palestinian children to hate and be intolerant of Jews, Christians, and other “infidels.” Bottom line: until that changes and until the Palestinian people become genuine partners in peace with Israel, little movement towards peace can be made. This is tragic for all, including those Palestinian children being indoctrinated. I hope our President understands this and could acknowledge it so the public could better understand the conflict. We can’t be naive to the causes of this centuries-old plight, and we mustn’t fail to ignore the one-sided effort to finally bring peace to Israel.
In the meantime, pray for peace in the Holy Land.
- Sarah Palin
Any country that fires rockets on people within their own country which they are trying to make peace with, is not actually interested in peace. Israel is not innocent in this fight. She is right that it is a centuries-old plight, but it is more complicated than she could ever understand. The President was correct when he said Palestinian children do not have a state of their own. Palestine was erased off the map for Israel to exist. It is a political and religious fight full of pride on both sides. It is complicated and I am glad our President acknowledges that.
As always, the best part of something like this is the comments that follow. Some are quite amazing in their ignorance and praise for someone who could not even say the name of a newspaper she read or a Supreme Court case she didn't agree with.
These are posted anonymously, and without names. I won't even link to where I got them, but rest assured, they are all in response to this post by Palin, reposted on a right-wing blog.
Thank you, Governor Palin. You always say just what I'm thinking about the president. He is so rude to go to Israel and not speak to the officials in the Knesset and instead speak to the youth of the country... very likely going against the wishes of their parents.He went over to Israel to try his sleazy hand at "organizing in the Alinsky/Chicago way". We wish that it were you over there representing us in the American way - 100% standing with Israel. Governor, please pray and consult with your family and run in 2016. We need you so badly. You are the authentic one.
Sarah needs to visit Israel and Gaza next week to meet with all the leaders of the region, staighten out the mess in a day or two, and take in some sight-seeing with her kids, too
They are not Palestinians. They are Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians. Ship them back to their real native lands and leave the native Jewish land of Israel alone. If Israel claimed that an iceberg in Antarctica was a holy Jewish site, then the Muslims would also claim that Muhammad talked about that site as holy to Islam. Islam has no claim whatsoever to Jerusalem. Islam claims it because Israel claims it. Palestinians (a made up people) have no claim to any part of Israel. True peace is when the fake refugees of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria go home and Israel reclaims Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
I applaud you for bringing any kind of Palin news forward here. If Palin isn't giving out a swift kick in the pants to the "elites", she's pouring out a soothing balm on the rest of us who recognize her as the leader of our patriotic and justice-loving heart. There is truly no one like her today.
Thanks (website), yep, right to the core of the matter. Palin as laways is first a brilliant analytical thinker and then the thoughtful policy maker. The narcissistic Liar in Chief is neither one and everywhere he goes he either creates problems or accentuates those which exist already.
Emphasis mine.
Pity Obama doesn't have her backbone but then again Sarah doesn't hate Jews the way he does.
Gov Palin the country needs a real choice in 2016 please run and please keep writing on facebook and consider writing an Op- ed
If Obama read the Bible he'd know as Sarah said the conflict is centuries old but since he is delusional and thinks he's the Savior he will never understand the truth.
Peace is a great idea and will work in most cases. However, there will never be peace here until one side totally destroys the other. SORRY !
Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) took to the House floor on Thursday arguing for the repeal of Obamacare. The House GOP has put this up for a vote, and failed, so many times now. It was funny for a while, but now it's just a waste of time. They should try to do something more constructive, like trying to solve the sequester problem.
BACHMANN: That’s why we’re here because we’re saying let’s repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let’s not do that. Let’s love people, let’s care about people. Let’s repeal it now while we can.
First of all, Obamacare does not kill anyone. Oh I get it, affordable healthcare kills people but not guns. If she really cared about keeping people alive, she would support the gun legislation being talked about on the Hill.
Speaking of guns, has-been musician and gun nut Ted Nugent wrote a column for a birther website. In his column he claims that "leftist stooges" are at fault for gun crime. Here's what he said:
The left has lied for decades about guns because they hate guns, despise the Second Amendment and blame the NRA families for crime and violence in our cities.
Truth is, it is the socialist stooges who are responsible for violence. It is their policies that prevent good guys from arming and protecting themselves and creates the big lie of "gun free" slaughter zones.
It isn't just anti-gun leftist policies that have enabled thugs to breed and prosper. The violence on America's streets is the result of a number of other leftist big-government policies that have worked to destroy families and entire communities by discouraging accountability and rewarding dangerous behavior.
That's the turbo destructo modus operandi of the socialists: Intentionally destroy something and then claim the solution to fix it is always more government, more laws, more control and less freedom.
Good people want to protect our children. Leftist stooges want to create conditions for evil to flourish. They don't care one bit about protecting kids.
Never trust leftist goons. They will put you and your children at risk to advance their socialist, anti-freedom agenda.
All he is doing is perpetuating gun advocate arguments that do not have facts behind them. Believe it or not, states with more gun laws actually have less gun violence.
And lastly, out of Arizona, a bill which the local media has dubbed the "Show Me Your Papers Before You Go Potty" bill. This is a reference, of course, to their controversial 2010 immigration bill.
The bill is targeted at transgender people and would legally require you to use the bathroom that corresponds to your gender as listed on your birth certificate.
With more people identifying as transgender, state and local governments are increasingly banning gender-identity discrimination to ward off legal battles, but opponents and proponents alike complain the laws don't explicitly demand businesses provide equal access for transgender people, creating confusion over how governments, restaurants, clothing stores and other establishments must act. It's been a crazy week, next week will likely be more of the same.
CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference was this weekend and the usual crazy was heard by all.
Donald Trump was invited to speak because the Republicans have not noticed how utterly insane the man is. In his speech, he slammed immigration from Latin American countries and asked why we can't have more immigrants from Europe. He said undocumented workers should not be given any path to citizenship because if they get to vote they will vote Democratic.
Sarah Palin sipped a Big Gulp during her speech to thumb her nose at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The fact that increased serving sizes, especially for soft drinks, has increased the rate of obesity is not an issue for Palin and folks like her.
There was so much crazy in such a small compact place. One could go insane going through all of it.
I do want to narrow in on one nugget of crap out of CPAC. The following video is of a panel with the Frederick Douglass Republicans where one participant, Scott Terry, demonstrated his ignorance of history.
When the speaker talks about a letter that Frederick Douglass wrote to his slave master thanking him, Terry interrupts.
Terry: “For what? For feeding him and housing him?”
After the outburst, he was overheard saying, “why can’t we just have segregation?”
Terry maintained that white people have been “systematically disenfranchised” by federal legislation.
When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.
At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”
So he decided to touch on sexism as well. Well it is nice to spread the hate around, I guess.
Last week the House finally passed the Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate had passed earlier. The Republicans in the House had been holding up this legislation for quite some time. Speaker Boehner finally brought the Senate version of the bill to the floor for a vote and it passed 286-138, winning over 199 Democrats and 87 Republicans.
The Republicans had proposed their own version of VAWA, which did not include the same protections for LGBT, Native Americans living on reservations or undocumented women. It would create extra steps for Native women that are brutalized on reservations to find justice. It would also create very strict guidelines for undocumented victims. LGBT families would not be included in the protections.
Megan Whittemore, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, “The House is expected to take up a strong Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization...so we can protect all women from acts of violence and help law enforcement prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.” Apparently she thinks excluding certain groups from protection constitutes "all women."
This is why it was really no shock when Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) admitted that she opposed VAWA because it granted protections to those groups.
When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.
Watch here:
Ah, I see. If only we used the money to open new crisis centers and shelters, maybe on reservations, she would support it. And then there is that bit about diluting the money that goes to the existing shelters, so she probably wouldn't want new shelters being opened either. The only way I read her comments is that she is upset that these extra provisions are taking away money from women in her district, her predominately white district. If she was truly about protecting women, adding more groups of women to protect would not be a problem for her.
I won't even touch how she seems to oppose an "against violence act."
These groups do need protection just as much as any women in America do. If a lesbian is the victim of domestic violence does she not deserve justice? Does an immigrant deserve justice?
There is currently an epidemic of sexual assaults on Native American reservations. This is why it was so important for this provision to be included. While it's estimated that 1 out of 6 American women will be raped and/or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, more than 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in her lifetime. And 80% of rapes on reservations are committed by non-natives. This creates many legal hurdles for reservation authorities. Only Federal authorities can prosecute crimes on tribal lands. This means that many rapes are not reported.
An NPR investigation also revealed a system underfunded and often broken: a tribal health center inadequately staffed and without rape kits to collect DNA from victims; tribal leaders and Native police unable to prosecute non-native perpetrators; and a patchwork of confusing jurisdictions in which federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement intersect and clash with each other.
The Tea Party does seem to be more and more outcast from the Republican party. It's a little funny to me.
A lot has happened this week and I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is under attack, more on that this weekend. Bills all over the midwest attacking the teaching of science, but that is nothing new, sadly.
I've been slow to post the past several days and when I finally did, it wasn't much. I'll try to get back on track this weekend. It was kind of a crazy week.
More attacks from the Right over President Obama's proposal for universal preschool.
Fox Business host Gerri Willis on Sunday called the measure immoral. I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.
A child's attendance in preschool has been linked to higher graduation rates, fewer teen pregnancies, and reduced drop out rates. These are all results that we want so why not give more children the opportunity to start their education in preschool?
Winning the contest for worst excuse to oppose universal preschool ever, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said she opposes the measure because it would lead to more paperwork.
Wait, what?
'You know, I had an email from a teacher as [Obama] was giving the speech, someone I’ve known for a long time and it was, ‘Are you kidding me? More paperwork?’
She's talked to teachers she knows and they are upset over the amount of paperwork this would cause. I was not aware that the amount of paperwork an education proposal could generate should be a reason to oppose it.
She went on to say that education should be handled by the states. We don't give the power over education to the states because that can't handle it. Southern schools are some of the worst in the country. Do you really think they'd get better if the state governments had control?
Give the power to the states. It's a bumper sticker. A silly slogan for her base to latch onto. People swayed by that have no business being in the conversation.
But those people vote, and elections have consequences.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has come up with a great idea to save money and avoid the sequestration: cut the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, has helped millions of young people by allowing them to have coverage they would not otherwise have had. This law also helps poorer Americans. It helps the single mom that has to work three part-time jobs to make ends meet, none of which would provide her health insurance coverage. Likewise, the sequester would also disproportionately impact the poorer end of the population. So essentially, Sen. Graham wants the President to choose between hurting the poor by eliminating Obamacare or hurting the poor by forcing Republicans to force the sequester.
This is a ridiculous choice Sen. Graham is proposing.
The White House has released a Fact Sheet on how the sequester will affect people and the economy should Congress allow March 1st to pass without addressing the issue. With people like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Speaker John Boehner on the case, I would not be surprised if the sequester happens.
Here are some of the impacts the sequester would have: via WhiteHouse.gov
• Cuts to education: Our ability to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk. 70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and funding for up to 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut.
• Cuts to mental health: If a sequester takes effect, up to 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children could go untreated. This would likely lead to increased hospitalizations, involvement in the criminal justice system, and homelessness for these individuals.
• Cuts to food safety: Outbreaks of foodborne illness are a serious threat to families and public health. If a sequester takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur, putting families at risk and costing billions in lost food production.
• FBI and other law enforcement – The FBI and other law enforcement entities would see a reduction in capacity equivalent to more than 1,000 Federal agents. This loss of agents would significantly impact our ability to combat violent crime, pursue financial crimes, secure our borders, and protect national security.
• Emergency responders – FEMA would need to reduce funding for State and local grants that support firefighter positions and State and local emergency management personnel, hampering our ability to respond to natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy and other emergencies.
• Homelessness programs – More than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs, putting them at risk of returning to the streets.
• AIDS and HIV treatment and prevention – Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in 7,400 fewer patients having access to life saving HIV medications. And approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be conducted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) State grantees, which could result in increased future HIV transmissions, deaths from HIV, and costs in health care.
All of these programs contribute to a stronger society. It doesn't make sense to cut these before cutting the inflated Defense budget.
It is about to be very bad to be a woman that needs to get an abortion in Arkansas.
After Republicans won big gains in the Arkansas legislature in the 2012 elections, they’ve wasted no time pushing their anti-abortion agenda in the state. Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) has already signed one new abortion restriction into law already, and he hasn’t specifically confirmed whether or not he’ll sign the other proposed anti-choice legislation in the works — including a radical “fetal heartbeat” bill that would ban abortions as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy.
But as RH Reality Check points out, the heartbeat bill could pass regardless of whether Beebe decides to support it. Under Arkansas law, a simple majority in the legislature can override the governor’s veto — so even if Beebe correctly concludes that the legislation is unconstitutional, the state senators who support the bill could vote again to override him. And, assuming that all of the legislators who have already voted in favor of the bill don’t change their minds, there are enough of them to assure its passage into law.
The Republicans cannot get their extremist agenda passed at any capacity at the National level but Republicans control the state governments of many states. That is how they will force the country farther right, by chipping away slowly at the rights of women and minorities and the simple right to vote in the states. Liberals and moderates need to stay vigilant.
Elections, no matter how small they may seem, have consequences.
Semi-rocker and all chicken hawk, Ted Nugent, a man that has
threatened the president multiple times was invited by a member of Congress to
attend the State of the Union yesterday…nah, maybe later.
Wayne LaPierre is spouting some of the most paranoid
nonsense we have heard so far in the current gun control debate, but that can
wait for another day.
The NRA helped distribute a small newspaper that stokes the
reactionary far right. It feeds on their
fear of government and strokes their infatuation with American myth. Maybe another time.
The special education teacher that has been vocally
supporting Indiana high school students in their quest to bar their homosexual
classmates from attending prom has been called out over her claim that gay
people have no purpose in life. I’m just
not feeling it right now.
But what do these all have in common?
They all really demonstrate how separated from reality these conservatives are. Whether they should be called spokesmen for the political right or not, I don't know, but they sure act like it. There was a study that was released last year that stated that conservative thinking was "low effort" thinking. They did not mean that as an insult, though unsurprisingly conservatives were upset. I really don't blame them.
This just means that conservatives have a hard time seeing the "big picture" and thinking through what the end results of policies might be. Some advocate deporting every undocumented immigrant in the country but they don't think it through. These immigrants contribute to the economy and we would definitely feel it if they were all gone.
It is simple to fear those different than you, whether it is LGBT folks or other minorities. Hate is simple. Understanding that these people are just like you, with maybe a slight difference is not as simple. They have similar goals and similar feelings. Empathy, catch it.
Sometimes hearing all this ignorance and simple thinking makes me sad. I'm sad because I don't know what the answer is. Is it more education? Is it simply exposing hateful people to what they hate in the hopes that they see similarities? Do we simply ignore them? I truly don't know.
These people vote, and elections have consequences
These people in Indiana deserve the title of Most Despicable for their attempt at turning the Prom into a political, hateful day.
This is not a few students posting some random anti-gay slurs on their Facebook profiles. This is a group of students advocating a special "traditional" prom which would exclude their LGBT classmates. This group is being defended by special education teacher, Diana Medley.
"We want to make the public see that we love the homosexuals, but we don't think it's right nor should it be accepted," one local student is quoted as saying.
They love the homosexuals! They just don't want them anywhere near them so they try to ban them from going to the prom like everyone else.
I suppose it is nice that they are not necessarily proposing banning LGBT students from their real prom, just their extra prom. Medley should be ashamed of herself. She teaches students from a group that is often discriminated against an apparently thinks this is an acceptable thing to do.
There is a Facebook group in support of the LGBT students at Sullivan High School. When I looked, it had over 10,000 likes. I think it could be much higher. Go like it. "Support the Sullivan High School Prom for All Students"
In an epic demonstration of timidity, the Boy Scouts of America have delayed their ruling on allowing gays into the organization until May.
How can the Boy Scouts join the world and stop this discrimination? Well first, like with many causes, you have to follow the money. Some of the largest donors are religious organizations like the Mormon church. And we know how the Mormons stand on this issue from relatively recent events. The Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists are also heavy contributors. Neither of these groups have been sympathetic to this civil rights issue.
Over the years, the BSA has rubbed shoulders with hateful, bigoted people and now they are in a sticky situation because of it. These people give them lots of money and while the country is moving on from the days when being gay was vilified, the BSA has painted themselves into a corner. They are afraid of losing their base.
There is a large religious force in the Boy Scouts, and there doesn't need to be. Morality doesn't come from a religion and can be taught without it. Excluding people from a great organization that has helped countless men over the years is immoral.
I would have a lot of respect for the organization if they would thumb their nose at the bigots that they have found themselves surrounded with and join the rest of the country in welcoming LGBT folks. If the radical religious crowd doesn't like it, they can form a new organization. The BSA will shrink with time if they continue this archaic policy. It is in their best interest, for the longevity of the organization, if they change their policy.
In other news, a Montana state Representative is sponsoring a bill that would allow for a criminal to "bargain" of corporal punishment. Yes, that does mean spanking.
Montana is one of the most beautiful states in the Union. Why do they have to go down this path?
Right now, Republicans in Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps more, are in talks that would change the way electoral college votes are allocated. Currently, these are winner take all states and always battleground states.
What is the problem with this? Why should Democrats be upset over having to fight over each congressional district for president? This is why. Republicans hold majorities in the state legislatures in all these states and they have used their power to change the congressional districts. By doing this, they ensure that a majority of their House delegation will be Republican, no matter how many more people in the state actually vote Democratic. Democrats won more votes than Republicans did in House races in 2012. This has happened in many states and is the reason why the President was re-elected by roughly 5,000,000 votes, the Democratic majority was maintained in the Senate while the House stays Republican.
Nebraska and Maine are the only states that allocate their electoral college votes based on each congressional district. The difference between what these states already do and the states currently thinking abut the change is that Maine and Nebraska most often have all their electoral go to the same candidate. 2008 being the only exception when Nebraska's 2nd congressional district, where Omaha sits, sent their electoral vote to Barack Obama. Nebraska is largely a red state.
This plan is not only at the state level. I know this because the Chairman of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus, has endorsed the idea. He thinks this is a good thing for Republicans to do.
This is not the first time Republicans have tried to cheat to win an election. The Voter ID laws that were passed throughout the country prior to the last election are a good example.
Attorney General Eric Holder referred to these laws as "poll taxes" and he is exactly right. Any law that forces a person to pay anything prior to voting has to be defined as a poll tax. Driver's licenses cost money and if you are poor and take the bus, this is an expense you may not want to incur. That shouldn't mean that you cannot vote. Minorities are more likely to be poor than whites and so they are disproportionately affected by these laws than whites. If you were poor and one party demonizes you constantly to appeal to their base, wouldn't you be more likely to vote for the other party? Maybe that's why Republicans like this idea.
It influences college students because many of these states will not accept a student ID to vote as part of these laws. A student ought to have the right to vote in the state they are living in because for the time they are attending that school, the representatives of that area essentially represent them too. Why would Republicans want to limit the amount of young people voting? Maybe because they voted in record numbers in 2008, and they tend to vote Democratic.
The 24th Amendment says that poll taxes are illegal. And yet, they still try to pass these laws.
As the country continues to change and feelings on many issues evolve, the far right feels more afraid. They are afraid that "the America they grew up in" is gone, and they are right. The thing that they don't realize, is that this is a good thing. We have more diversity in more places than ever. We are passing marriage equality measures in several states with many more on the way. The examples are endless. One song keeps play around and around in my head while I write these words.
