The wheel keeps on turning

The 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on this date in 1919. This constitutional modification was championed by sundry groups seeking a more pure and godly nation, and saw a means to that end by constitutionally barring the demon rum.

Unfortunately, the outcome was far different from what was expected. Instead of abstinence, we witnessed the birth of a new and highly lucrative small business model. This held particular attraction for some enterprising Italian and Jewish immigrants. Once the legal sale of alcohol fell under the prohibitionist ax, bootlegging gave a giant leg up to La Cosa Nostra (which roughly translated to English means, This Thing of Ours.).

It took Americans a little time to fully realize the futility of the teetotaler agenda, but fourteen years after the ratification of the 18th amendment, it was effectively repealed by the passage of the 23rd. The mafia, however, was firmly entrenched and had no intention of rolling up the carpets and putting up the Going out of Business signs. The mob immediately branched into more hardened criminal activities; most notably the protection racket, gambling, and prostitution. Initially at least, they avoided the drug trade. That would come later. It wasn't until the late 60s that the FBI effectively broke the mob's back, and it took until after the turn of the millennium for the last of the major Dons to be convicted and sent to prison.


Almost a century of organized crime was birthed by sincere puritan efforts intended to save humans from themselves, yet in the interim saw terrible violence and bloodshed. We witnessed massive increases in violent crime and soaring murder rates. Prohibition extracted a heavy price on this nation.


This did not deter the passion of the prudes. They weren't done yet. Coincidental with the anti-alcohol efforts came the effort to demonize and prohibit by force of law yet another substance... cannabis. A fact that seems lost in this 21st century is that cannabis was freely cultivated in this nation in the 19th century and into the early decades of the 20th century. It was a good cash crop; used in  the production of medications, rope, and textiles... and yes, it was used to get high.

On the surface, the cannabis prohibition effort was played as just another of the do-gooder causes, but the true tale of how the substance fell into the cross-hairs of law enforcement is both interesting and disgusting. It harbors a vaguely European and very American narrative... racism.

Following the end of the Mexican revolution in 1920, the U.S. began to see an influx of Mexican and Central American migration. Although every state received migrants, it was seen mostly in the southern border states and into Louisiana. These migrants brought with them their native cultures, customs, and languages. One of the customs shared by most was the use of cannabis as a relaxant, yet just like Americans, the migrants also used it in medicinal preparations. Their word for the substance was marijuana rather than cannabis. Americans were familiar with the cannabis plant, but the word marijuana was a new and foreign term. This ignorance was seized upon by the prohibitionists as they mounted their new campaigns. Those folks had unlikely allies in this prohibition effort... in the form of white supremacist groups... most notably the "Christian" Ku Klux Klan.

So an unholy alliance between the prohibitionists and our good old and ever-present American racist elements took form. The campaign began by implying that this stuff they brought from down south... this marijuana... must be evil. That slowly morphed into strong hints that the Mexicans themselves were evil. New terminology also began to enter our lexicon; Cannabis became the demon weed, devil's lettuce, killer herb, skunk weed, wacky tobaccy, killer reefer, and a host of other such monikers clearly intended to demonize something that Americans knew to be beneficial. The media, fed with the false and exaggerated claims about disruptive Mexicans and their dangerous use of the evil marijuana, joined in on the campaign. It was disguised as law and order... yet was in reality little more than the latest racist attempt to keep America white.

The average American, ignorant of the fact that this terrible marijuana was in fact the very same as something with which they had grown comfortable... something already in their medicine cabinets. In great numbers the uneducated jumped on the prohibition bandwagon, torch and pitchfork in hand. The fabricated rhetoric stoked fear among the public back then, and continues to have a direct connection to the anti-Mexican movement we still see today.

We had seen previously seen where controlling citizens by controlling customs could be successful. By making marijuana a controlled substance and banning it from use or sale, our government successfully implemented a national strategy for keeping certain populations under the watchful eye of law enforcement. This suited our American bigots just fine. The more Mexicans sent to prison, the better.

Eighty some-odd years ago the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 became law. Since then the pitch and volume of the rhetoric has peaked and ebbed like a roller coaster, but the past two decades have seen attitudes change considerably. The reversal of the ill effects brought by this unjust prohibition has come more slowly than it did for alcohol, yet as of this writing, thirty states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that in some form or another legalize marijuana, while eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted recreational use laws. Voters in Massachusetts and Maine recently passed legalization, but at the time of this writing, those states have neither written rules for growers and retailers, nor have they begun accepting licenses applications.

A major hurdle is that cannabis remains illegal under federal law. In 2013, then President Obama ordered his Justice Department to not enforce federal law in the jurisdictions where cannabis had been legalized by voters. As the public becomes more  aware of the fabricated health claims used to justify prohibition and its implied racial bias, the clamor for legalization grows louder and making it highly likely that others will follow the majority's lead. Some of the holdout states are having discussion and voters may soon find ballot initiatives addressing the issue when they go to the polls.

In spite of these popular calls for legalization, we now have another president and another Attorney General; both intent on reversing Obama era initiatives. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions recently stated that his department would be paying no attention to the Obama mandate or will of the people, and immediately launched a new crusade. His goal is to once again raise the specter of "the evil others and their demon weed." In Sessions’ eye and apparently that of his boss, the mission should again be to turned toward authoritarian control, with a desired result of ensuring a good supply of detainees marching in chains toward the for-profit, private prisons.

So here we are for another ride on the roller coaster, and this too shall pass. We'll see what comes next, but this author predicts full repeal of all cannabis prohibition laws within his ever shortening lifetime.

The wheel keeps on turning.

~~~

Evangelical Preachers, Stop Crediting God With Donald Trump’s Victory

Dear Evangelical Preachers

I think you believe you’re helping right now.
I think you believe you’re actually glorifying God.
I think you believe you’re somehow bolstering the Gospel.
I think you believe that you’re engineering some conversation-stopping, sanctified mic drop, by crediting God with Donald Trump’s ascension to the U.S. Presidency.

You’re not doing anyone of these things.

You’re not sharing the Good News of Jesus.
You’re not evangelizing.
You’re not making disciples.
You’re not helping.

You’re making from the pulpit and platform, the greatest case for Atheism you could ever make.

You’re aligning God with an ignorant, petulant, narcissistic bully.
You’re putting God’s rubber stamp on unprecedented racism, bigotry, and violence.
You’re attributing to God, the most despicable treatment of women, the greatest intolerance toward the marginalized, the least compassion for the hurting.
In other words, you’re assassinating the character of Jesus in an effort to rub non-Christian’s noses in it.

Crediting Donald Trump’s win to “God” is the best conceivable argument for someone rejecting faith.

If God is responsible for the unbridled vulgarity, the viciousness toward people of color, the utter disregard for diversity that the President has so continually displayed this year—you can keep God.

If God sanctions someone like Trump to the highest place of leadership we have—you can have that God.

If God is that partisan, God is not a God who “so loved the world”, but One who has contempt for most of it.

If you’re asking me to agree that a God who is love, can also be a God who votes Trump, you can stop right now because that’s laughable and ludicrous.

Fortunately, I know God isn’t responsible for this disaster:

God didn’t campaign for Donald Trump.
God didn’t fail to report on the sexual assault allegations against him.
God didn’t give incendiary sermons.
God didn’t hack into our databases.
God didn’t generate fake news stories.
God didn’t suppress voters.
God didn’t refuse to educate himself on the issues.
God didn’t reject experience for celebrity.
God didn’t have his racism emboldened.
God didn’t manufacture hatred for Hillary Clinton.
God didn’t excuse sexual assault for a Supreme Court seat.
God didn’t choose party over country.
God didn’t stay home on Election Day.

I think God watched it all and wept.

It’s rather telling that the same God you’re crediting for Donald Trump now, seems to have had nothing to do with the past 8 years of Barack Obama. Guess God was offline or sleeping during those two terms.

Preacher, there is nothing to be gained by using the President-Elect as supposed evidence of God’s work in the world. It bears no good fruit. It has no redemptive value.

All it does is pour salt into the gaping wounds of marginalized communities who feel threatened and vulnerable right now. It says to people of color and Muslims and the LGBTQ community and women, that God is not for them. It confirms for those already viewing Christians as all hypocritical, dangerous, and self-serving—that they are correct in this assumption.

You’re wasting your platform, failing your calling, and squandering an audience with millions of people by giving God credit for a madman’s success.

Stop it.

Stop passing the buck to God.

---  John Pavlovitz

~~~

Lies and the lying liars who tell them:

Petroleum edition

I've kept my yap shut about this just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Now that it has I'll point my finger at the hypocritical Dimocrats that ran away from the President and lost their elections anyway... especially the dumbass in Louisiana (is that oxymoronic?).

This is Bill Girling, CEO of that supposed job creator, the Keystone XL Pipeline. Just a few weeks ago this lying liar and primo Foxsucker was promoting 40,000 "enduring" jobs created by the pipeline. Now he admits only about 50. Oh how the mighty do crash and burn. Hope he takes a few score of those money grubbing, lying GOPers in Congress with him... and let's include the remaining few Dims that took the big money to lie.

One thing is certain. You cannot trust the multinationals or the politicians in their pockets. They don't care about you one iota.

LAND GRAB

LAND GRAB: The disenfranchisement of a people.

“My heart is filled with joy when I see you here, as the brooks fill with water when the snows melt in the spring; and I feel glad, as the ponies do when the fresh grass starts in the beginning of the year. My people have never first drawn a bow or gun against whites. There has been trouble on the line between us, and my young men have danced the war dance. But it was not begun by us. It was you who sent out the first soldier and we who sent out the second. The blue dressed soldiers and the Utes came out from the night when it was dark and still, and for campfires they lit our lodges. Instead of hunting game, they killed my braves, and the warriors of the tribe cut their hair for the dead. So it was in Texas. They made sorrow come in our camps, and we went out like the buffalo bulls when the cows are attacked. When we found them we killed them and their scalps hang in our lodges.

The Comanche are not weak and blind, like pups or a dog when seven sleeps old. They are strong and farsighted, like grown horses. We took their road and we went on it. The white women cried and our women laughed. But there are things which you have said which I do not like. They are not sweet like sugar, but bitter like gourds. You said that you wanted to put us upon a reservation, to build us houses and make us medicine lodges. I do not want them. I was born upon the prairie, where the wind blew free and there was nothing to break the light of the sun. I lived like my fathers before me, and like them I lived happily.”

These words were spoken in 1867 by the Chief Paruasemena (Young Bear) of the Yamparikas Comanche at the Medicine Lodge Treaty negotiations. There were three treaties signed at Medicine Lodge, Kansas, and all were abysmal failures. [i]

Settlers, the United States military and the tribes all failed to honor a number of articles in the treaties. The agreements were caught up in a bitter dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate over which body had control of treaty making with the Nations. Then as now, politics was the fly in the ointment. Unresolved acrimony and political posturing spelled an end to treaty attempts after 1870. It also disrupted promised appropriations and rations for reservations. This made a bad situation worse as the rations were wholly inadequate in the first place. The result was famine and sickness for the natives on the reservations. Discontented young men left the reservation with their families, returning to the old way of raiding settlements, both out of anger for the dishonesty of the government’s agents, and to alleviate their starving conditions. It wasn’t long before the wars reached fevered pitch.

The previous brief history describes the beginning of the end of the story. The origin of the story harkens from prehistoric times. Abundant evidence has been unearthed suggesting that primitive human society existed on the American continents for some 12 millennia, but with their origins remaining somewhat a mystery. [ii]

Evidence of these peoples has been found in scattered locations across the North American Great Plains. For several years, we called these natives the Clovis people. The first and most abundant evidence was discovered near that New Mexico city. We have since determined that there were three separate and unrelated DNA lines that appeared on these continents within a few thousand years of each other. They were of different blood lines, but all were foot nomads. It was the Clovis bloodline that was ancestor to the Shoshonean nations, from which the Comanche are descendant.

The early nomads were hunters who ventured onto the plains in search of large game. They hunted mammoth, musk ox, reindeer, elk, bear and primitive horses. After about 3,000 years, the focus shifted to the early bison, predecessor of the buffalo. The people migrated in search of game but returned every year to traditional, high ground locations to prepare for the coming winter. These traditional camps and the artifacts found there produced much of our knowledge about this people.

This lifestyle continued in one form or another for centuries, but then along came the European invasion.

It started with the Spanish, followed soon afterwards with the French, Dutch and English. The western march of settlements brought strangers with strange customs into regular contact with native tribes. Many of the tribes and bands were friendly to the newcomers, receiving the new settlers with good grace and offering trade. Others resisted contact and simply moved further west. The Euro-Christian concept of Manifest Destiny and the Homestead Act of 1862 provided false justification for settlers to push further west, creating more competition for finite lands and game, creating tension between the settlers and the Natives.

Many treaties were signed in futile efforts to assuage conflict, promising land, rations and peace, but the treaties were almost never honored. The Christian concept of manifest destiny manifested only as bigotry in these situations, and the natives were treated as savages. The natives responded in kind.

The Comanche tribe provided one of the main sources of resistance. Famous for their horsemanship and ferocity, the roving Comanche bands became notorious for raids on homesteads and towns, and for kidnapping settler women and children. The most famous of these was Cynthia Parker, mother of Quanah Parker.

This resistance served only to heighten tensions between the settlers and the natives. With the outbreak of the Civil War, some Indian tribes attempted to align themselves with what they believed would be the winning side. In the case of the Comanche, that side was the Confederacy. When the war ended with the Greycoats losers, the Comanche were brought to Fort Smith in Arkansas and made to swear loyalty to the United States Government.

The humiliation did not long last, and soon came a resurgence of the Comanche as rulers of the plain. They spread out over large expanses, taking what they had learned from the white man and expanding their influence both militarily and economically. They battled their enemies with diplomacy and with violence, determined to maintain power in their areas of control. In the Treaty of Little Arkansas in 1865, the tribe was awarded a large piece of land spanning parts of Oklahoma and Texas. Some parts of this region, known as Comancheria, later became part of the reservation system.

The tribe continued their raids, and soon the United States Government took action. The Comanche Campaign is a term used by the Government to describe the organized effort to drive the Comanche off their land. The Comanche redoubled their resistance in a series of violent clashes with the settlers between 1867 and 1875.

The Government was intent on taking the land it had granted by treaty just a few years earlier. In 1871, Col. Ranald “Bad Hand” Mackenzie, was given command of the Fourth Cavalry Regiment and sent to Texas with orders to force the Comanche onto the reservation. Over the next few years, using large bodies of troops, Mackenzie engaged in dozens of skirmishes with the Comanche in the area known as the Llano Estacado. [iii]

In the early morning hours of Monday, September 28, 1874, in a deep Red River canyon in the Texas Panhandle, 400 troops led by Mackenzie attacked a still sleeping camp of Comanche, Kiowa and Cheyenne. The women and children not killed in the initial attack retreated up the canyon while the men engaged the soldiers allowing their families to escape. The engagement lasted for hours, and by noon the surviving natives had escaped, leaving lodges, horses, and supplies gathered for the coming winter behind. Mackenzie ordered the lodges burned and the supplies destroyed. Next, he slaughtered 1,048 horses leaving the natives afoot. Without horses, shelter, or food, the natives faced a killing winter. [iv] A few at a time the beaten natives straggled into the reservation rather than face certain death.

The Palo Duro Canyon fight was the largest engagement in the Red River Wars. It marked the end of the Southern Plains Indians' military resistance. The once proud Comanche surrendered, their chiefs imprisoned and the people forcibly resettled onto reservation.

A proud people was dispossessed of land that had been their ancestral birthright for over 12,000 years. To this day locals visit the Palo Duro to collect meal from the decomposed bones of the horses and mules, most of them oblivious to the history upon which they stand.

---

[i] Jacki Thompson Rand, “Medicine Lodge Treaty (1867),” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/ME005.html> (Accessed 2014.04.27).

[ii] W. Fitzhugh, I. Goddard, S. Ousley, D. Owsley, D. Stanford. "Paleoamerican Origins." Encyclopedia Smithsonian, Science and Technology. Anthropology Outreach Office, Smithsonian Institution, 1999. <http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm> (Accessed 2014.04.27).

[iii]  Ernest Wallace, "MACKENZIE, RANALD SLIDELL," Handbook of Texas Online <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fma07> (accessed 2014.04.27), Uploaded on 2010.06.15, Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

[iv] T. R. Fehrenbach, Comanches: The Destruction of a People”, 1974, LCCN 73-20761. Republished in 2003 as Comanches: The History of a People, ISBN 1-4000-3049-8, LCCN 2003-267713

Humanism

...or the reasons I find the hatefulness of the modern Republican Party so abhorrent

Probably the best way to begin this thesis is to describe the ontological viewpoint known as humanism… or more accurately, secular humanism. This general philosophy represents how I choose to live my life. 

Recognizing that any definition of particular philosophies must be broad and that no definition can be all-inclusive or unilaterally applied, secular humanism generally represents the notion that humans are basically good in nature… and that accepting responsibility for the collective human condition is something individual humans can do, and in my opinion ought to do. 

The humanist accepts that it is a more pleasant world when we lend a helping hand to the disadvantaged and backstop each other in the event of unexpected events. Human efficiency improves when we work together as a team. The more productive members of the team are those who don't have to worry so much about the next meal or what they might do in the event of catastrophic illness.

Humanism is comparable to libertarianism in some ways. Both philosophies stress individual rights and responsibilities ... but unlike libertarianism the classic humanist attempts to be unselfish, focusing on human dignity and trying to understand human failings. When confronted with fraud, duplicity or other aberrant behavior the humanist will more often take a stand for human rights even while disagreeing with individual behavior that can be dealt with within the framework of established law. 

Humanists try to reject fear and chauvinism along with the incumbent hatred and bigotry that seems so prevalent in the fearful. In humanism the greater emphasis is the collective whole, with selfish individualism taking a back seat. 

In general the humanist tends to understand the responsibility humans ought to feel toward other humans and recognize the imperative of nurturing, protecting and caring for the other individuals and the tribe as a whole... when that is possible. 

Humanists generally recognize that as a species we are stronger when we band together to sustain and protect certain weaker or disadvantaged members. It seems apparent that our lives are generally better with the comforting knowledge that our fellow humans are ready and willing to reach out with a helping hand if we find ourselves in need, rather than living with the fear that if the worst should happen we could find ourselves on the street or with hungry children.

Humans are fallible and imperfect and the humanist is no different, but for the most part the humanist knows that turning a blind eye to the disadvantaged or letting any part of the whole suffer means that the specie will experience some degree of failure. The humanist finds this unacceptable. 

The humanist tends to be more accepting of new ideas and unfamiliar concepts, not fearing or hating others simply because they are somehow different. Discovery is important, and in general the humanist tends to look at life more as the journey than the destination.

History has taught us that humans are quite capable of explaining phenomena with rational thought and employing the scientific method, so humanism is skeptical of supernaturalism, avoiding magical or mystical explanations for problems we haven’t yet solved with science. The humanist knows that a natural or physical answer will come in time.

Humanists recognize the existence of certain venues and alternatives that at times and under certain conditions suffice in caring for our disadvantaged members yet remain willing to use all available means... including the fallible systems of state governance... to leverage the greatest effort to sustain our neighbors who might otherwise fall victim to extensive illness, hunger or disability. 

The humanist realizes full well that greedy, lazy and opportunistic people will take advantage of benefits they neither need nor deserve. Because of this the humanist will support rules or laws that prohibit or prosecute such bad behavior… so long as there is assurance that arbitrary or broad brush laws will not allow the truly needy to lose the help intended for them. A humanist would find this accidental denial more offensive than allowing the undeserving to get away with a crime. 

All of the above is simply a preface for a bit of a rant against hateful GOP/tea party tropes on how much welfare, food stamps, and other “entitlements” are sucking from society. In general the humanist doesn’t pay attention to the fear mongering because humanists understand that there are far more truly needy individuals and families depending on these programs than who unjustly take advantage of them, and that the cost is minimal. 

I got started on this line of thought when the following graphic landed in my Facebook feed. 

I'm sure the person posting this simply thought it was funny, but the implication that his tax money goes to welfare and that the people receiving assistance are “lazy bastards” is far from funny. To take an entire segment of American society and arbitrarily accuse them of being lazy and bastards is simply hateful. 

We have all heard the stories of leaches unfairly bleeding the system, but the fact remains that an overwhelming number of those accepting assistance are simply down on their luck. The greatest number are children. The humanist in me cares less about a few leaches bleeding some small amount from my tax dollars than I care about helping the ones in need. 

The notion that tax money is "supporting" anyone seems a bit of an overstatement, since the allowable benefits are so small. I did a little research to see just how much of my tax money actually went to welfare, and what the documented rate of abuse might be. 

The first data I discovered tells us that SNAP fraud is at an all-time low, estimated at just 3% of the total allotment. So the waste and abuse meme is simply a myth. 

Further research provided data on how much of our individual tax bill actually goes to welfare. The amount that SNAP costs when spread over the entire population is only slightly more than the average wage earner spends in a week just for lunch and coffee. 

If you are like me... pretty much just an average working stiff... you probably paid somewhere between 18% and 22% of your 2012 income in federal taxes. For me that was about $1,200. 

Under current law about eight cents of each of my tax dollars is designated to some non-military welfare fund. In other words I contributed just under $100 toward those hated “entitlement” programs. Programs that are helping underprivileged and disadvantaged members of our human tribe… giving them a chance to sustain themselves until they can gain a foothold and start contributing back to the society that gave them a helping hand. 

As I have already admitted, I know there there are leaches sucking the government tit and taking advantage of my small largess, but as a humanist I’d far prefer to see a Cadillac driving slug in Wal-Mart buying cigarettes and potato chips with food stamps than I would see a down on her luck single mother or her child miss a meal and lose the chance to claw her way back to self sufficiency. 

I really wish that otherwise bright people would do a little background checking before posting these hateful memes or making such bigoted statements. It is almost as if they have minds already made and purposely avoid any data that might demonstrate their position flawed. Regrettable, especially when such drivel comes from someone I call friend. 

As a sidebar, for every cent of my taxes (yours too) going to welfare there are about five that go toward supporting us when we get older and retire. Another four cents goes to the Pentagon’s budget. If you want a photo of what your taxes support I can send you one of an old fart in Bermuda shorts, Hawaiian shirt and Panama hat standing in front of a B-1 bomber. That could be you or me if we are fortunate enough to survive that long, and I certainly don't want to see a part of my retirement that I have paid into and supported all these years disappear simply because a few people refuse to check the facts and choose to remain ignorant.

The breakdown for how tax dollars are spent is roughly this: 

• 24 cents to military, defense and veterans programs

• 16 cents to Social Security

• 16 cents to Medicare

• About 10 cents to interest on the debt

• About 8 cents to the classic “welfare” programs, including food stamps

• 6 cents to public health and disease prevention

• 4 cents for infrastructure, transportation, highways and bridges

• 3 cents for unemployment assistance and job retraining (the fellow who posted the above graphic should know a little about this part)

• About 3 cents for education

• 2 cents for natural resources

• 2 cents for federal pensions and the general running of government

• 2 cents to “foreign aid”

• About a penny for disaster aid

• About a penny to the court system and federal prisons

• Less than a penny to commerce and housing

• Less than a penny to science and research

• Less than a penny to agriculture 

So instead of chiseling poor people out of the few dollars they get from the social programs, why don’t we chop the eight cents off of the Pentagon’s budget. We ought to be able to accomplish that since we already outspend the next eight big spending countries combined. If we were to slice a third of the defense budget we’d still outspend the next five combined.

The point to all of this is that people aping these hateful memes should pause a bit and check facts before blindly accepting them to be factual. Almost all of these are rooted in bald-faced lies and distortions and are composed by people with fear and hate in their hearts. Almost all of them are forwarded by people who have a belief and do not want that belief challenged... so they don't check them.

If you are so easily manipulated that you don’t mind blindly forwarding hateful lies, you live in a very small world indeed. 

###

Voter fraud

Well, I'm not too proud to admit it when I'm wrong. Since the beginning of the Republican efforts to stamp out voter fraud I've argued that these bills were addressed at a crime that was all but nonexistent. I'm ashamed to say that the Republicans have proved me wrong. 

###

Hypocrisy

This is what he says...

This is what he does...

Pastor fired for sexual relationship with teen congregant

Defending (any) religion by saying that there is some good that comes from religion is like defending a rapist because he used a condom and tithes 10%.

###

Voter fraud from outer space

Wingnut Republican, “But don’t you think it’s a good idea to ensure the validity of the election process?”

Reasonable dude, “Well certainly I do. I just think it’s more important to set up planatary defenses to protect humanity from alien invasion.”

###

Where voter ID bills come from, and why they are a bad idea

To begin with we must ask why we are even having this discussion. In the constitutional, democratic republic of the United States of America, we should all hope that the will of the people be represented at the ballot box. Instead of thinking up schemes to deny access, we should be working overtime to ensure that every eligible voter has unfettered opportunity to cast their ballot.

So why are voter ID bills designed to limit access to the ballot box popping up in so many states? Those promoting these bills raise the specter of voter fraud, but so far have failed to produce evidence of wide spread or organized efforts to illegally vote. The few incidences cited certainly do not justify laws that may disfranchise millions of voters.

I’ll grant that there is evidence of isolated instances where fraud has been alleged, but where are the trials and the convictions? Besides, there are laws already on the books to punish voter fraud that are severe enough that they should deter such activity.

Currently there are 23 states and the District of Columbia that allow voters to show either photo and non-photo IDs. Accepted forms of ID include utility bills or bank statements. In these jurisdictions there has been no evidence presented that voter impersonation fraud is occurring.

Where we get into the heart of this effort is that government-issued photo identification requirements have a disproportionate impact on minority voters – voters who might not select a certain political party at the ballot box. The real reason for the voter ID bills is the same as the poll taxes and literacy tests of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries – to deny the right to vote to those not likely to vote for the current ruling party.

A 2006 nationwide study of voting-age citizens by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law found that African-Americans are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a government-issued photo ID, with one in four African-Americans owning no such ID.

In Missouri, the Secretary of State identified nearly 240,000 registered voters who are mostly elderly, disabled, poor, and minorities, who also lack a government issued photo ID. In March of this year a Federal Judge struck down the Republican-backed ballot measure because it would unfairly deny a basic right to a large segment of Americans.

Very much the same thing is happening in multiple states. Already this year strict photo ID requirements have been introduced in well over half the states and have been passed in Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.  Bills are going on the ballot in Mississippi, Missouri and most likely Minnesota and is pending in Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

In each and every case the evidence used to promote the bill is thin and the resulting disenfranchisement is broad. Minorities and the elderly will be the disproportionately affected by photo ID laws.

In every case the bills are Republican backed. Prior to 1964 every effort to disenfranchise voters was Democrat backed. That changed when LBJ signed the voting rights act in 1965. A whole bunch of a certain group of citizens jumped parties that year, but the tactic hasn’t changed – and neither has the intent.

###

Suggested reading:

Davidson, Chandler, Quiet Revolution in the South, The impact of the voting rights act, 1965-1990, Princeton, 1964

Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification (Nov 2006)

###

The other side of his mouth

Perry tours tornado damage

LANCASTER, Texas -- Gov. Rick Perry toured tornado-damaged areas in North Texas Thursday and met with emergency management officials. During a press conference, Perry suggested Texas would ask for federal disaster relief for areas hit by the storm.

...but how can this be? I thought we were about to secede! And didn't Goodhair just turn down federal money for women's health care?

Hey Rick! You still have about $3.7 million in your failed campaign's bank accounts, and your personal little slush fund is sitting on another $200 million, but I understand that you need that money to butter your own bread, so why don't you just do what you've been doing all along... thumb your nose at the feds and cut some more from the schools.

After all, you've got to help out your buddies in the construction and insurance industries if you want them  to continue feathering your nest.

In 1984 when he won his first election to statewide office, Goodhair reported a net personal worth of just $13,000. In 2009, after 25 years feeding at the public trough, Rick's financials reveal a net worth of $1.09 million. Who knew that being a public servant could be so lucrative?

Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right... Indeed.

###

Is there a war on job growth?

Welcome to the modern Republican Party.

From the moment Barack Hussein Obama was declared the winner of the 2008 Presidential elections, the GOP has been on the move. Who could forget Mitch McConnell’s reaction to Obama’s success and the petulant assertion that the Republican’s “top priority” over the next four years was about making Obama a “one term President.”

Three years have gone by since McConnell uttered those words and the "Party of No" has held true to the course. GOP actions (and inaction) had until recently stalled the economic recovery. A successful campaign of distortion turned everything bad in the world into Obama’s fault.

The 2010 mid-term elections resulted in a new GOP controlled House and a greatly diminished Senate majority for the Democrats, severely compromising the ability of Congress to move any progressive legislation. The drag on economic recovery would continue.

Truth has always been a bit of a stranger in American politics, but the modern GOP has taken this truism to even greater horizons. The misinformation and dirty tricks machine was successful prior to the mid-term elections.

The oft-repeated mantra was that the bad economy was an entirely Obama creation. Questions were raised about the President’s right to hold office, his patriotism, even his religious faith. GOP resistance was framed as a patriotic mission denying an evil President the pleasure of destroying America.

Following the mid-terms, flaunting their new Congressional prowess, GOPers continued to block efforts to rebuild the economy. But these efforts have ceased working, mainly because some of the programs and policies put in pace prior to the mid-terms were actually resulting in modest job creation. In spite of the best Republican efforts the economy was improving. A GOP change in tactics became necessary.

The new complaint eminating from the GOP is the administration’s “economy busting” “crony capitalism,” and “job killing” green energy agenda. After some great successes in casting the now bankrupt Solyndra as epitomic of President Obama’s energy policies, Republicans now are lambasting what they have dubbed “Obamacars.”

Congressional Republicans and FOX News talking heads targeted the Chevy Volt, made by an auto maker saved from bankruptcy by Obama administration policies. The claim was that the vehicle is a fire hazard and economic boondogle.

Unhappy with these characterizations, the electric car industry is fighting back. Bob Lutz, a UC Berkeley business school graduate who championed the Volt when he was vice chairman at GM, wrote in his blog…

“…the loony right has its jaws sunk into the Volt with all the stupid determination of a terrier who has locked his teeth into the mailman’s butt. And with the same result: painful, but without any useful purpose.”

The same “loony right” has also targeted Tesla Motors, claiming that grants issued to the upstart electric car manufacturer amount to crony capitalism. Tesla received a $465 million Department of Energy loan but has since dropped pursuit of any further federal loans. They are instead raising private cash. The car maker plans in July to start deliveries of its $50,000 S car, claiming it is on its way to the mass car market.

Ricardo Reyes, a spokesman for Tesla, very gently told the GOP exactly what they are full off...

“We applied during the Bush administration, and we were approved under the Obama administration, so as far as we’re concerned, we at least had a bipartisan relationship for the loan...

We got one of first loans and we used it to build the car that is now going into production in a U.S.-based facility…

I’d like to think we’re pretty much a case study on what the loan program was designed to do.”

It is unfortunate that much of this tactic has been successful... and that jobs have been lost because of it. The GOP managed to taint the renewable energy loan program in spite of the fact that this particular program was started by the Bush administration as an effort to wean America off of imported oil. Now, due to character assassination by the right wing, the formerly bipartisan effort is in jeopardy.

GOP tricksters have pulled the wool over an under-informed electorate, but the efforts likely will not kill the electric car. This Republican led campaign of misinformation has General Motors pissed, and theyre doing something about it. GM Chief Executive Officer Dan Akerson has complained about the political atmosphere that surrounds the Volt.

“Sometimes I feel bad for President Obama,” he said this month after an appearance at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. “This car was designed and committed to well before he was president, and it’s called the ‘Obamacar.’ It’s not the Obama car. I’m proud and I’m pleased that he thinks highly of it, but it’s all on us. It’s not a political issue.”

The automaker accused Republicans and the right-wing media of hyping claims that the car caught fire during testing.  1,300 jobs were lost at the Volt plant due to GOPer posturing and mischaracterizations, even though there has never been a fire except in one in a controlled testing environment. A battered test vehicle burned hours after a crash test, blamed on test workers neglecting to properly secure the wrecked vehicle.

On March 1 GM opened an unprecedented campaign to re-introduce the Volt in California, the biggest U.S. auto market. Sales are expected to be brisk and the company hopes to re-start manufacturing once inventory levels drop. In spite of the GOP, people will be going back to work.

For the GOP it has never been about job creation, the economy, helping the environment, creating stability in the financial markets, making sure Wall Street never again melts down, jobs, budgets, controlling the debt, or paying off our deficits – that was just smoke and mirrors.

For Republicans it is all about ensuring Obama is a one term President... economy be damned.

###

Arizona legislature endorses controversial contraceptive bill

For my conservative friends saying that the government should stay out of the contraception issue, this story ought to make your day.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

So it is the Soviet Union that would impose upon a "mom and pop" if the government insists that insurance must cover all people equally, but it isn't when the government passes a law authorizing said "mom and pop" to pry into an employee's medical records? ...and Senator Lesco thinks the First Amendment allows this?

Really?

The Republicans keep on telling us they are the party of liberty, small governemnt and freedom. So why do they keep on trying to pass laws that allows the governemnt (and now my employer) to poke noses into my library and my bedroom?

###

Helen

This past week I've ranted and raved about the Komen fiasco. It all seemed so clear to me that the decision to defund Planned Parenthood was an unwise and politically motivated move. Bad for women and in the end bad for Komen.

All my hot air was unnecessary. All I had to do was wait for Helen. I'm reprinting the entire thing here, but click on this link to leave this brilliant lady a comment. I truly do hope that Broken Andy, the person leaving the anti Planned Parenthood comment on my earlier post reads this. 

Margaret, do you remember how angry we were the day we finally realized that women’s legs are not harder to shave than men’s faces, but rather razors made for women can’t hold a candle to those made for men? And the women’s razors are more expensive to boot. I’d like to meet the asshats at Gillette and give them a piece of my mind. Did they really think we wouldn’t mind just because they made the razors pink?

And speaking of pink, this whole mess with Komen should be a wake-up call to women everywhere. Komen knew damn well that this had nothing to do with mammograms and everything to do with politics. They just thought we wouldn’t notice because the ribbons were pink. They knew what they were getting when they hired Karen Handel. She ran for office in Georgia with a campaign promise to close down Planned Parenthood. Exactly what women’s health clinics did they think we women were using for years before we started racing for a cure? Did they think that the millions of us who had gone to Planned Parenthood before we had health insurance (and even after) weren’t aware of the services we were provided? Trust me. When you go to a place and have a doctor poke around your hoo-ha, you pay attention.

Nancy Brinker, shame on you. You honestly thought your fellow women were so stupid that we would think your reason for defunding Planned Parenthood was somehow different than the never-ending cry for defunding that comes from the far right every election cycle? Well I am here to tell you that it is bad enough when it comes from the male-dominated, testosterone-filled legislatures. But when it comes from a supposedly apolitical women’s health organization, it’s unforgivable. Your original intent when you started this organization was noble and I commend you. But honey, you have lost your way. So much so that you were willing to put tens of thousands of women in harm’s way because the Republican party wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

I, for one, am tired of pink razors. And I know I speak for millions of women when I say that from now on if you push us, we will push back. From this point forward, when someone says that you fight like a girl, they had better watch out. We girls know how to fight when our backs are against the wall. No longer is it acceptable that we are half the population but only 16% of the Senate, 16% of the House of Representatives and 16% of the Governors. Margaret, did you know that the proportion of women in America’s Congress is about half the average for national legislative bodies throughout the world? Well honey, you and I are not dead yet, and we sure as hell aren’t leaving this world anytime soon if the women’s movement to date has only gotten us this far.

In the past Margaret and I have stood up for Planned Parenthood. But that is no longer good enough. Today, tomorrow and every day that we have left on this planet, we won’t just stand up for them, we will stand up for women everywhere. We will vote for them. We will advocate for them. We will fight for them. And we will start right here. Right now. My grandson tells us that people from all over the nation and even from other countries read this web page blog of ours. Well, I can’t imagine why, but if you are going to read it, then you should use your head for something other than a hat rack and learn a thing or two about the real Planned Parenthood.

Yes. They provide abortion services. Deal with it because they also do so much more and we remember the world before them. It wasn’t pretty.

I called a Board Member for Planned Parenthood in my community and we had a good talk. I found out that even I didn’t know the whole story. And after you read this, I challenge you to do what she asked me to do: inform the uninformed and educate the misinformed.

Planned Parenthood provides healthcare – pap smears, breast and pelvic exams, colposcopies, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and birth control for both women and men – most without access to any other health care services. About 97% of their services are for this basic healthcare. If you want to talk about abortion services then you should at least know the truth. Providing that service for women who are faced with that daunting decision accounts for less than 3% of what Planned Parenthood does nationally. Less than three percent. They also provide prenatal care, vasectomies and adoption referrals. One Planned Parenthood clinic does more in a day to prevent abortions than the entire Pro-Life movement does in a year. We might not agree on abortion, but we should at least be able to agree that they should be safe, legal and rare.

If you want to talk about Planned Parenthood then talk about the thousands of uninsured women for whom the doctor or nurse at Planned Parenthood is the only health professional they will see this year. Tell them about the divorced 40-year-old woman who, for the first time, finds herself without health insurance and how she turned to Planned Parenthood to ensure that she is able to maintain her health and wellness. Planned Parenthood has never been just about sex and birth control. It has always been about ensuring women are healthy enough to care for the children they one day may bring into this world. And yes, it is also about making sure they are informed in their decisions not to bring children into this world.

Tell your Tea Party friends what good fiscal sense Planned Parenthood education and prevention programs make – that for every dollar spent providing family-planning services, $4 are saved in Medicaid costs. Remind them that more than one-third of the individuals who seek help from Planned Parenthood make less than $50 a week. That’s right – $50 a week.

If you are going to talk about Planned Parenthood, then at least have the courage to speak the truth. We knew the Komen decision was politically motivated because we know that far right politicians are the ones who continue to spread untruths and misinformation about Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich all stand ready to restrict a woman’s access to birth control and her right to make her own childbearing decisions. They will cater to the far right and happily deny essential health care to millions of women. The Republican field is united in its determination to overturn Roe v. Wade; to appoint Supreme Court justices supportive of that goal; and to end government funding of any kind to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, cancer screenings and other vital health services provided to low-income women. By the way, Planned Parenthood does not receive government funding for abortions. Although for the life of me, I can’t imagine why not.

Mr. Gingrich has called for punishing judges who make abortion rulings not to his liking. Mitt Romney supported the “personhood” initiative in Mississippi that would have given human fertilized eggs the legal rights and protections that apply to people, and outlawed abortion as well as some of the most widely used forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. For goodness sakes Rick Santorum, the candidate who won the first primary this year, doesn’t even believe in birth control at all.

If you really, honestly want to reduce abortions in this country, the last thing you want to do is vote for a Republican. If you want to reduce abortions start in your own home by educating your children. Teach your sons to respect women and arm your daughters with information about birth control. If you are so outraged by abortions that your only criteria for a presidential candidate is that he be obsessed with my uterus, then arm your daughters with all the information she needs to protect herself from all those sons who were raised by politicians in Texas and Virginia. And if you really care, make a donation to Planned Parenthood or this other organization called Annie’s List. My grandson says that if you “click” on the underlined words in the previous sentence it will take you to a place you can make a donation on the internet. It couldn’t be any easier than that.

This November, I say we show them what it really means to Fight Like A Girl. Somebody call Gloria Steinem because we’ve got some more balls to bust. I mean it. Really.

###

It left a mark

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, it appears, has Screwed the Pooch.

Sunday morning the Dallas Morning News ran an article quoting current and former advisory board members and long-time donors, the majority of whom say they are done with Komen.  Some going so far as to say that the Komen Board of Directors could never again be trusted.

“Under increasing fire Thursday, Susan G. Komen for the Cure responded to critics who accused the nation’s top breast-cancer fundraiser of caving to anti-abortion pressures when it cut Planned Parenthood’s funding”

WBUR, Boston’s public radio station, aired a program that spells out the very unwise nature of involving politics in such sensitive, heartfelt and personal matters. Public relations expert Dawn Gilpin, a professor at from Arizona State University, highlights how this incident will serve as a guidepost, both for the fundamentalists and the nonprofits, for any such effort in the future:

“This is going to be a sidebar whenever a nonprofit does something political. It's going to be used in classes, as in, 'Don't do this.”

In other words, when any charity sees the religionistas coming they will bar the doors. More beneficial than that would be if the wingnuts would learn just how much resistance they will face when trying to push these dogmatic, divisive agenda items... but likely that is too much to expect.

We can't expect them to go away any more than we could hope the Westboro Baptist Church loons would suddenly understand that vulgar protest at warrior's funerals is a bad idea, but maybe for a while the trolls will go back under the bridge and quit trying to insert theocratic politics into a society that clearly is not interested.

###

A true dichotomy – Politicized, Predatory Charity

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure^® Foundation has been developing somewhat of a reputation as a bully… threatening and filing lawsuits against anyone using their "trademarked" pink color (without a license from Komen) in product packaging, and even other groups using the term “cure” as part of their name or in the advertising of an event even when they were trying to fundraise for breast cancer.

“The true absurdity of our current laws is shown by the abusive litigation of Susan G. Komen For the Cure”

“[R]aising money for charity is not ‘use in commerce’ and thus not deserving of a trademark”

"People are donating money to this organization [Komen] to fight cancer -- not to fight another organization fighting breast cancer."

"It is startling to us that Komen thinks they own pink,"

“What bothered her most about the whole ordeal, she said, was that Komen forced her to spend money and time on legal fees and proceedings instead of raising funds for cancer”

Considering that the organization is supposed to be about saving lives and promoting prevention, the fact that Komen's tactics are a bit rough has not gone unnoticed. Late last year a Canadian film production company produced a documentary, entitled "Pink Ribbons, Inc." that is said to "resoundingly pop the shiny pink balloon of the breast cancer movement/industry." Much of it deals with Komen's aggressive protection of that questionable trademark. 

But when this film was in production things over there at SGKF were only begining the downhill slide. In April Komen added former Georgia Secretary of State and failed gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel to the leadership team as Senior Vice President for Public Policy. In her campaign for the governor’s office Handel pledged to “eliminate” Planned Parenthood funding, ignoring the fact that Georgia’s grant funding was specifically for breast and cervical cancer screening and not for abortion services.

"[S]ince I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood ... In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor."

With a senior position at Komen, Handel seems to have accomplished what she failed to do as an activist politician. Although she has taken no public credit, neither she has made any effort to disuade the thought and scores of her supporters are leaving congratulatory notes on her Facebook wall. UPDATE: Hanedl's Facebook has been pulled down. Hopefully someone got screenshots first.

“We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure”

In the process she has added to the tarnish on the formerly good name of a leading foundation supposedly devoted to women’s health, and demonstrated that the politics of religion trumps the lives of low income Americans. This added to the unwise trademark lawsuits has soiled a previously stellar reputation.

“They may risk alienating the public they're trying to serve”

I think it’s too late for that. The public is generally pretty alienated already. Even the Susan G. Komen for the Cure^® state chapters seem aggravated. Connecticut's chapter has refused to follow the corporate lead... the chapter president, Ann Hogan, has one word for her reaction: “frustrated.”

The Wisconsin chapter seems poised to follow Connecticut and rebel against the national office. Komen is losing former supporters in Congress too. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was a strong proponent, but pulled her support following the Planned Parenthood action.

"I have been a big booster of the Susan G. Komen organization,’ Speier said on the House floor. ‘But not anymore”

As Rep. Speier indicated in that floor speech, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure^® foundation is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes, and it is precluded from any form of political activity as well. But then so are churches and we've seen how far they push that envelope. 

Although heavily censored there are some interesting comments on the Komen message boards (you'll have to hunt for them) and all one has to do is find the story and read the comments on any online newspaper... or just read the comments on the Charity Navigator site to see the dismay and frustration felt by now former supporters.

Americans should be pretty fed up with this kind of behavior. The reaction on the web is just the beginning. The general public, as they learn of this, I think will be quite dismayed. I wonder if once Komen’s corporate sponsors begin hearing from angry customers and sales of pink colored products plummet, that the SGKF board might not be looking for some new leadership.

So its up to us. My suggestion is to do as PZ says…

“Redirect your charitable giving to organizations that don’t have a Puritanical streak, and are a bit less Republican in outlook. There is no shortage; I recommend the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Breast Cancer Charities of America, CancerCare, and the Cancer Research Institute. So far, they all seem to be dedicated to fighting cancer and helping people, and a lot less concerned about policing people’s morality to conform to that of the Religious Right.”

Or if you’re one to rub salt, do as TBogg suggests [via]…

“[Y]ou can make a donation to Planned Parenthood and request a thank you card be sent to…”

Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309

Planned Parenthood has also launched a donations page on it's site where individuals can contribute funds to continue cancer screening for low income and poor women.

Personally I'm quiet weary of religious authoritarians trying to force feed their versions of mythology and superstition. Xian religionistas are getting bold and the moderate, reasonable majority has been mostly silent. Maybe with something as momentous as this some of that silent majority will finally hear a call to action... and maybe some of the more moderate on the other side will see the light and figure out who is the real enemy.

If so, and if the heat we're witnessing now grows... causing SGKF to suffer a bit for their foolish action... perhaps the wingnuts will think twice before trying such disgusting tactics in other arenas. 


But honestly I doubt it. They're in it for the long haul, they have their imaginary "god" on their side... and they smell the blood in the water.

###