Category Archives: Politics

Tennessee Law Makes Me Question Their End Goals

Posted on by

I was sent an article about a new Tennessee law.  At first I thought it was a joke.  Something left over from April Fools Day, poking fun at the sometimes backward thinking of Appalachia.  They could not possibly be serious.  But it would seem that this is not a joke, despite the new material the State has just given the late night talk shows.

The law:

Under the law, Tennessee teachers could be disciplined and speakers from outside groups like Planned Parenthood could face fines of up to $500 for promoting or condoning "gateway sexual activities." (MSNBC)

Gateway sexual activities? "Kissing and hugging are the last stop before reaching Groin Central Station, so it's important to ban all the things that lead to the things that lead to sex,"says Gov. Bill Haslam.  Clearly Gov. Haslam has forgotten what it was like to be a teenager.  And clearly he cannot read, because any governor putting forward and abstinence only program of sex education should at least have paid a bit of attention to the numerous studies about the failures of abstinence only programs.  A quick search of the Internet will show that these programs do not lead to a reduction of teenage pregnancies or reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  And as the article points out, Tennessee  has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.  By ignoring this fact alone, the government of the state is doing its citizens a disservice.

Said State Rep. Jon Lundberg:

The shift is that the main core needs to be an abstinence-based approach. Not, 'hey, I know everybody's having sex, so when you have sex do this, do this, [and] do this.’ That's not it

What Mr. Lundberg fails to take into account is that the kids already have sex on their minds.  It is biological, fueled some say by media (something that I do not fully support) and it is unavoidable.  Rather than putting your head in the sand, you should be teaching the kids exactly what to do, how to do it correctly and how to prevent bad things from happening.

Because simply telling them they cannot, is not a workable solution. It never has been and it never will be.

You’ve heard of the Constitution right?

Posted on by

Occasionally I am completely baffled by those who call themselves conservative here in the Excited States of America.  I am generally baffled by those that yell, at the top of their lungs one thing, usually completely in contradiction to what is the law of the land, or already a granted right.

For example, those that feel that abortion is wrong yet support the Second Amendment to the extent of prying their guns from their cold dead hands.  How can you be opposed to one and in favour of the other when the end result is potentially the same (and here's a hint, I am not talking about security).  Or better, complain that security needs to be tighter, as long as it does not impact their ability to move or do the things they are used to doing.

But lately, it is the radical religious conservatives that have me really scratching my head.  Today, I read this:

Greenwell Springs Baptist Church pastor Dennis Terry introduces Rick Santorum: “I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation…There is only one God and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words.. Listen to me, If you don’t love America, If you don’t like the way we do things I have one thing to say – GET OUT. We don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammad, we don’t worship Allah, we worship God, we worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”

I point you to the Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1, The Bill of Rights:

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. 

If the Founding Fathers really believed that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, then why did they explicitly ensure that there would be no restriction on the exercising of religion, any religion, practised by the people of the United States, citizen or otherwise (yes, the Constitution applies to all persons, citizen or not, residing, or visiting the United States.  If you do not believe me, feel free to look it up).  Christians in the United States are allowed to feel that this country was founded as a Christian nation, but, despite the history, or maybe because of it, the Founding Fathers took a stand, and opened their arms to all nations, religions and races.

So, as a right granted to you by the Constitution, feel free to worship Allah, or God, or your shiny toaster if you want.  That is your right, and as hard and as often as the conservative base of the Republican party want to, or try to, that is not something they can take away from you.  Annoy a Republican, tell them you have read the Constitution but question if they have.

The real Republican base?

Posted on by

In the movie Goldeneye, M (a woman) refers to James Bond as a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War...  If that is what a woman thinks of Bond, what do women really think of the Republican party?  Based on the current voting, I have to wonder what happened to women's liberation?

With the current trend towards Santorum, especially in the South, a man who makes Bond look hip, modern and connected to his feminine side is saying that he will be the Republican nominee come November in the race for the White House.

So could someone tell me what it is about the major religions on this planet that seem to feel all women should be covered from head to toe, and kept out of sight?  If you think I am only referring to Islam, guess again.  In this case I am specifically targeting the words Mr. Santorum has written in his own book.  I would hope that this is not the general thinking of the average Republican.  But over the course of the last few months, I have begun to wonder.  What is the thinking of the Republican base.  The real Republican base.  Because if it mirrors that of those who claim to represent the party, women in the United States are in for a serious awakening.  And they will not like what they are about to discover.

SOPA, does anyone care?

Posted on by

Today, founder of the non-profit behind information archive Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, announced that the site will go dark for 24 hours on Wednesday in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  (TNW Insider).

First, for most, SOPA is short for Stop On-line Piracy Act, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Congress that proposes to extend the power of law enforcement and copyright holders in the US to combat online piracy, and it would essentially allow the US Department of Justice – and copyright-holders – to seek court orders against websites accused of facilitating copyright infringement.

Ironically, this is the second such bill.  The first one, part of the Patriot Act, already grants broad powers to the United States Government to go after and shut down data sites, but this is the first one that allows the copyright holders to bring the action, and numerous luminaries believe this will cripple the Internet more than anything that has come before. And they are probably right.  But a bigger question is this: Is anyone paying attention?

Like most bills, this one is an attempt to resolve what is perceived as a problem, without fully addressing the scope of the issue and using a howitzer to remove a tumour.  People that do not understand the issues are rushing to impose their political view (is it a surprise this is being introduced by the small government unless it is related to stripping away your rights Republicans) on people that not only know better but could probably solve the problem in a couple of minutes without the need for pages of legal documents.  Worse, the sources of the violations are not in hosted in the United States and the law will have no impact on these sites.  In fact, all it will do is hasten the brain drain from the close-minded United States to those countries that are more open minded about change and resolution.

Since September 11, the citizens of the United States have, in the name of security, seen more of their rights chipped away than at any time in the country's history.  And SOPA is only one more example of this.  So what are you going to do about it?  The Presidential election is only 10 months away.

U P D A T E: Maybe someone is paying attention: "SOPA is not dead; it has been shelved and won’t return “until a consensus is reached,” according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)." (Imgur)  The Senate is still scheduled to vote.

Personhood, Take 2

Posted on by

RICHMOND, Va. - A proposed "personhood" bill in Virginia's General Assembly could spark debate that may leak over to the Presidential campaign. (WTOP)

Was Virginia not paying attention when Mississippi went through this?  It is no surprise that Bob Marshall (R) has introduced this bill.  If it is related to the erosion of women's rights or the destruction of logic, Bob Marshall is usually behind the effort, but just because the bill might survive a legal challenge, this does not make it any more sensible, logical or necessary.  And, in fact, it could result in more harm, to the living, to those it is meant to protect and to those not yet thought of than it will bring benefits.  The delegates in Richmond have a number of much more important issues to be discussing over the next 60 days than grandstanding.    If Marshall would focus more on the damage that sitting in hours of gridlock than on the trivialities that he focuses on, he would find a lot more people supporting him, than treating him with the derision he deserves.

Is it over yet?

Posted on by

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry filed a lawsuit in federal court to get his name on the Virginia primary ballot (WTOP)

And with that, the first of many salvoes, that will undoubtedly define the battle for the White House in 2012, has been fired.  Both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did not get enough signatures to qualify for the primary ballot in Virginia.  It turns out that Virginia has very stringent requirements for getting your name on the primary ballot.  To wit, 400 signatures from each congressional district (there are 11 in Virginia).  And, of course, the Virginia Attorney General has jumped into the mess by saying it is an "embarrassment" that Virginia has such stringent requirements (well, OK, in all honesty, he said it was an embarrassment that Newt, a resident of Northern Virginia, would not appear on the ballot.).  Most of the citizens of Virginia however do not seem to see it this way, but there you go.

If you live outside the United States, you probably look at the election process in the United States as a mess of people crawling up a pile of manure to come out on top as the cleanest of the combatants. If you live in the United States, you know that the winner is never the cleanest.

What I do not understand is this:  How can other countries conduct fair elections in less than 9 weeks while in the United States, it is almost a national pastime?  Studies have shown that the electorate is essentially burned out with the constant election process.  Yet we wonder why we keep getting these...well...less than stellar candidates running for public office, or worse, known crooks being re-elected!  It would be nice to think that come November, the political machines will be mothballed for a couple of weeks, but I am afraid that come November 7, the chaos will start up again, in both parties, for the elections in 2016.

Wake me when its over...

TSA, your tax dollars at work.

Posted on by

I have left no rock unturned in my derision of the Department of Homeland (In)security, and its security arm, the Transportation Security Administration.  Today, the Los Angeles Times posted the following article:

By Mary Forgione Los Angeles Times Daily Travel & Deal blogger October 31, 2011, 12:32 p.m. "Get your freak on girl." That phrase written by a Transportation Security Administration baggage screener might get the worker fired. (L.A. Times)

The worker's offence?  Writing a note on that form letter TSA put in your luggage when they riffle through it looking for your valuables...er...checking it for explosives.  In this case, the agent discovered a vibrator.  Way to jump right on that dangerous weapon there TSA, but why is it that you missed the loaded .38 not a week earlier?

TSA has argued that they are looking for explosives, not firearms, and clearly a pair of batteries placed end-to-end are more important to check out than a firearm with rounds in the chamber, because the super-sensitive detection equipment that cannot tell the difference between plastic explosives and peanut butter means you have to open the suit case, but clearly shows you that there are rounds in the chamber of a firearm!  And let's face facts, if a gun discharges in the uncompressed baggage compartment, it will only make a hole in the aircraft.  At least that is probably what the folks at TSA are hoping anyway.  Never mind that they do not bother to actually check the airframe for explosives, which is a blessing for our friends in Columbia who continue to successfully smuggle drugs around the United States every day.

The bare facts are that the highly trained and background checked employees of the Transportation Security Agency are no better than the Keystone Kops they replaced in most airports.  I say that with a certain degree of derision because I do remember going through airports where the security was much better under the private companies because the private companies hired people that actually cared about what they were doing, which is protecting the flying public.  The TSA is only paying lip service.  And if you do not believe me, just look up the number of them that have been disciplined for doing little to protect you versus the number of times they have stopped a real incident from happening.

Off With Their Heads!

Posted on by

That famous cry of the Red Queen should be ringing in Washington.  But you will be surprised at whose heads should roll.

This morning, CNN is reporting that the Supercommitte, that group of upstanding members of Congress that are supposed to be coming up with real cuts to the U.S. deficit have reached an impasse.  The issue?  Democratic members want $3B in cuts.  The Republican members only want the amount legally required, $1.2B.

Are these the same Republicans that have been belly aching for the better part of the last year that there is too much spending in Washington?  Are these the same Republicans that are accusing the President of being a socialist and forcing unfunded mandates on the country?  Are these the same Republicans that are expecting the United States to take them seriously?

The Ghost of Events Yet To Come?

Posted on by

I was watching the footage of the police action in Oakland overnight with the Occupy movement and could not help but be reminded of events earlier this year in Tahrir Square in Egypt.  And I am not entirely sure that the motives are not similar.

More and more, people are beginning to realize that most politicians have almost no interest in the citizens that sent them to the various bodies to represent them.  They are instead more interested in staying in power, and the money that comes with that position.  It should not be a surprise that you have to be rich to get elected.  The last U.S. Presidential Election cost a billion dollars.  Money that we all agree could have been better spent on any number of things.  This was not federal money, government money, but private money, that very same money that the politicians are saying needs to be spent by companies on jobs.  Does this mean that we will have to wait for the current presidential campaign to really get serious before we will see jobs being created?  Since I cannot see money being spent for anything but politics.

I would suggest Washington pay attention, but that would mean they actually care.  And clearly, given the current mood of the country, they do not.

More on Replacing a Dictator…

Posted on by

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) - Libya's interim rulers have declared the country liberated after an 8-month civil war, launching the oil-rich nation on what is meant to be a two-year transition to democracy. But they laid out plans with an Islamist tone that could rattle their Western backers. (YahooNews)

On Friday, I pointed out that the change in government, from Gadhafi to parties unknown, might not be exactly what the West might have wanted.  So it is not much of a surprise that Libya, like Egypt and other Middle East countries, swept up in the mayhem of the Arab Spring are emerging, not as democracies, but as theocracies, or at the very least a nation that is more focused on the religious than on the secular.  We have seen what the Taliban, in the name of religion can do.  We have seen what the Ayatollahs have done to Iran, in the name of religion.

For all the protestations that Islam is about peace and harmony, these nations tend to highlight the worst of the religion, not the best.  And tends to further damn their religion in the eyes of those outside those countries.