The SoapBoxers

I hate to spend a second month in a row talking about “immigration reform” in Arizona, but it is still a hot topic.  The currently passed bill is not what I am going to talk about today. On the near horizon Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the man behind SB 1070 sometimes referreed to as “Mr. Ethnic Cleansing” is ready to unleash a fury of new proposals, many of which he has tried before that thankfully failed, but in the current climate that is the patients running the asylum of Arizona state politics they frighteningly will be likely to pass. One proposal will be to only allow Americans to marry Americans. Seeing as Pearce hates legal immigration just as much as he hates illegal immigrants I am supposing he means that only naturally born citizens will be allowed to marry natural born citizens. But even if it is just a restriction on allowing people not to marry someone who is a citizen of another country it is insane and unconstitutional. What is next Mr. Pearce? No race mixing? I guess Rand Paul may not be the only one wanting to revisit the Civil Rights Act after all.

Another proposal Pearce has already being debated titled Arizona SB 1097 that in general would require all schools in Arizona to count students who are in the country illegally or whose parents are in the country illegally. After doing so the school district would have to compile a report of the cost to taxpayers for their enrollment, expel the student and turn them and their families over to the proper officials. School districts that refuse to comply under this statue if it gets passed, then the state would be forced to withhold ALL funding the school district receives. I guess Pearce is willing to make sure every student suffers on his quest to rid Arizona of those pesky foreigners.

Education, or lack thereof in Pearce’s case, leads me to the next item that he could be bringing back on the agenda. In the past Pearce had proposed a law that would require all Arizona schools, K-12 and universities to disallow groups that as any part deal with ones ethnicity or race to be a member. Such as Black Business Leaders of Tomorrow or Native Americans United. The proposal Pearce says is to make sure that students are not indoctrinated by any anti- American teachings. What a crock of shit. From the company he keeps, American values for Pearce are expressed only by those with white skin. So I am guessing those types or groups would be excluded from any law made on this.

The mother of them all legislation Pearce is ready to bring to onslaught again is one that will be in direct conflict with the 14th amendment. This proposal would be to bar hospitals from issuing birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants or as Pearce and his crowd refer to them as “Anchor Babies”. Pierce also takes things a step further stripping the citizenship granted in the past through being born to an illegal immigrant “If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother” Pierce said. “Call it sexist, but that’s the way nature made it. Men don’t drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do.” However this type of law would be immediately stomped because it is clear as day unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” and that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

You can say what you want about illegal immigrants having children and them being citizens, but until there actually is a change to it, there it is in plain black and white text unconstitutional. As far as making it retroactive is downright wrong as well as you create a whole secondary class of citizens that would be in the US illegally now and have no country they belong to. However I fully expect Sith Lord, I mean Senator John McCain, to fully back this legislation as the next cure all pill for immigration reform as he did with SB 1070 just to save his political life. But needless to say, thanks to the birthers, the tea party and Mr. Pearce and his long time supporters, SB 1070 is not the last thing you are going to be hearing out of Arizona for the foreseeable future. Mr. Pearce you are truly an American Idiot, if I can call you that of course as I have not seen your papers. May I have your papers please Mr. Pearce?

Earlier this week the Arizona Senate took a huge step back when it decided to pass a new tough immigration bill 17-11 along mainly party lines (Republican for, Democrat against). The bill make it illegal for illegal immigrants to not have paperwork on them proving they are in the country legally as well as requiring law enforcement to question the legal status of an individuals.

Now the first part of the law is kind of redundant and idiotic. An illegal immigrant is not going to have any proof they are in the county legally so making it a crime for them not to have the papers is kind of moronic – similar to the laws that make failure to pay taxes on illegal drugs a crime when there is no mechanism in place to pay the taxes.

The second part of the legislation is the more controversial and the part I will spend my time discussing here. Basically under the legislation, if and more than likely when the Governor of the state signs the bill into law, if you can’t prove you are a citizen on the spot, then you are just gonna have to go to jail while they sort it out. The Governor faces a primary challenge, so the logical thought is that if she does veto this she will kiss her political career in Arizona goodbye. Heck even John McCain who is trying to out teabag the teabaggers in Arizona to save his political career has come out in support of the legislation calling it a needed and useful tool for law enforcement in the state. A complete 180 from his recent as of the 2008 Presidential race on immigration reform.

Anyway, outside of a Social Security card and a Drivers License, I don’t know what I myself would have on me while driving at any given time. So I am guessing I should make sure to carry plenty of extra documentation on me next time I go to Arizona. Then again I am not the main objective of the law (which will focus on non-white people, primarily Hispanic individuals, legal or illegal) so I wouldn’t probably face much of a hassle, but then again that is what is wrong with the law in general. It requires law enforcement to question the legal status of everyone, but in reality the mood of the law as well as the probable enforcement is for one particular group of individuals.

Then again, what exactly will prove the legal status of someone on the spot, I said I wouldn’t probably expect someone to have more than their License and Social Security card on them, so that isn’t gonna be enough more than likely as I have said. Birth Certificate? I don’t carry mine around or really know anyone who does on a regular basis. Then again this is Arizona – where the legislature doesn’t believe in the accuracy of the President’s birth certificate. Why would I expect them to believe in the authenticity of mine? Immigration papers? A person whose family has been here for generations is not gonna have anything of the sort. Green Card? Once again that’s only gonna be useful if I were not a citizen but here legally. Student visa? same story as above.

You get the point? It is gonna be near impossible for someone to actually prove to the officer who already probably has prejudice against you that you are a legal citizen, so your time and civil rights are going to be trampled upon and racism rules the day.

I get that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be solved, not only in Arizona but around the country as a whole. However blatant racism is not the way to “reform” the issue. I am guessing the next legislation they are going to propose is shoot first and prove innocence or guilt later, or maybe to post armed militia at the borders ready to shoot to kill those crossing the border.  Oh wait, it is Arizona they already do that, don’t they?

And now for the Bad Nuts of the Month (other than the Arizona Senate)

As always in no particular order, because a bad nut is a bad nut….

Bad Nut No. 1: Jacksonville, FL City Councilman Clay Yarborough

Yarborough’s questioning of prospective Human Rights Board members suggested that he was seeking members who would discriminate against gays and Muslims.  In later interviews, he also said that gays and Muslims should not be able to elected office – only Christians should be allowed to hold office. Just another dumb small-minded bigot, but on the deeper note of his bias and ignorance, I am guessing he means only people with a similar view of Christianity as him should hold office.

Bad Nut No. 2: Dr. Gregory Thompson, former Humansville, Missouri School Superintendent

In a recent opinion piece the former Public School official says amongst many other moronic notions and “facts” that you will go to hell if you don’t take your kids out of public schools.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1127513671.html

Bad Nut No. 3: Thomas Mitchell, Editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal

Had an editorial piece on it being time to repeal the 19th amendment, because “men are consistent and women are fickle and biased.” Full opinion piece from him is here.

http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell/Time_to_repeal_the_19th_Amendment.html

Dispelling the Health Care Rumors

I’ve seen a lot of arguments on both sides of the health care debate in the past few months. A lot of smart things have been said, and a lot of flat-out untruths have been spread. I’m here to take on the ones that bother me the most.

1) The government is just intruding on your freedom

The Truth: The mayor of East Podunk, Kentucky could sneeze and someone out there would see it as a governmental invasion of your freedom. The fact is, the government isn’t forcing you to buy health care any more than they’re forcing you to buy auto insurance if you own and drive a car, but you will pay a tax if you don’t have health care come 2014. Right now the majority of Americans have health care through their job, so if you’re reading this odds are you fall in that category. If you’re not one of those people, don’t have health insurance, and don’t want health insurance then you’re a liability on us all: if you get sick or injured to the point where you have to go to the ER, you’re a burden on everyone’s taxes, including your own.

2) This is just one more step toward socialism!

The Truth: The average person who says that has no clue what socialism really is. The US has, and has had for many years, socialist systems in place: Unemployment, social security, police forces, fire departments, and even the military. The military is like a little socialist bubble society within American society. Beyond that we already have socialist systems in place, you’re going to pay a tax if you’re not already receiving health care from your capitalistic job so that if you should be injured or get sick to the point of needing emergency medical services you won’t be an undue burden on the government. Gee, that tax kind of sounds like … insurance, doesn’t it?

3) This is government takeover of health care.

The Truth: No. Private insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals will still exist as private, for-profit businesses. The government is already in the health care business from Medicare and Medicaid, programs which millions of people are very happy with. Here’s two typical right-wing talking points that don’t logically work when combined: the government can’t run anything right, and health care companies are afraid the government will run them out of business. If these companies are so successful why should they be afraid of an inept and bumbling government?

4) The US already has the best health care system in the world, we don’t need any new laws or to change anything.

The Truth: The US, according to the WHO in 2000, ranked 37th in the world as far as health care goes; slightly above Slovenia and Cuba (you know, Cuba, that socialist, communist, pinko country to the south of Florida). This ranking was based on number of preventable deaths, healthy life expectancy, health performance rank, and total expenditure of percentage of GDP for health care. I know, if Canada has such good health care, why do their leaders come here to see our doctors? They don’t. The only positive proof of this I was able to find was a Canadian Parliament minister coming to the US to see a specialist for a very specific issue. I can even counter that with a personal anecdote: I had a friend go to Germany for experimental cancer treatment when his US insurance was unwilling to pay for expensive treatment that might have saved his life. Sadly, he died a few years ago because of that cancer. Yay capitalism.

5) “Death Panels” will decide when your grandma dies.

The Truth: That is so outrageously false I’m shocked that anyone actually believes it, but then I’m shocked people believe half the things that come out of Glenn Beck’s mouth. The best I could come up with is the term “Death Panel” was made up by Sarah Palin in an attempt to sensationalize end-of-life counseling and use it as a scare tactic. When people get old, they sometimes need more help from medical professionals than when they were younger. This can get expensive. To help best plan for this time often their children consult with a doctor on what to do. This is called end-of-life counseling. Here, I’ll re-label it. Let’s call it … Elderly Living Assistance Planning.

6) Non-jailed sex offenders will be able to get viagra on this plan!

The Truth: What? Are you serious? Senator Coburn of Oklahoma brought this up in yet another attempt to scare people away from the idea of health care reform. A convicted sex offender not in jail could get viagra on this new health care reform law in the same way a convicted murderer not in jail could get a gun – through someone willing to give it to them. The outrage at this issue is misplaced, as that scenario is no less or more likely 2 years ago than it is 2 years from now.

7) Costs will go up with the new health care law.

The Truth: What’s to prevent costs from going up now, say … the way they have the past 10 years? Since 2000 there has been a 100% increase in the cost of health care to the average individual while the average wage increase is a fraction of that. Yet, health insurance companies have been reporting record profits and your average health insurance company officer makes tens of millions of dollars a year. At least with an open market system we’d have a chance at real capitalistic price wars. Right now the CEO’s paycheck is padded each time a pencil-pusher gets a pat on the pack for denying you coverage on something. I’d rather have a complete government takeover – I trust the “inept, bumbling” government with my health more than I trust someone to pick my health over greed.

Image via Wikipedia

This is not going to discuss energy savings, shutting down oil refineries or offshore drilling.  In this case, Going Green is referring to Cannabis Sativa, Mary Jane, Blunts, Roaches, Joints, Spliffs, Bongs, THC, Bob Marley, yes….marijuana.

California has captivated headlines by saying that they’re going to place an initiative on their ballot to legalize marijuana.  This is happening even as numerous states are running into numerous problems with their Medical Marijuana laws.

Some of you know that I live in Colorado.  Colorado has a Medical Marijuana law and it has exploded in use over the last couple of years.  There are currently more marijuana dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks and they continue to pop up.  Each night on the news I hear stories about another robbery or burglary happening at another marijuana dispensary.  Cities across the state are now scrambling for ways to better regulate these facilities.

A very basic question that I have is this.  THC, the ingredient in marijuana that people are smoking it for, is available in pill form already.  Why then do we need to have smoked marijuana available with all the problems that it brings?  Marinol is a prescription medicine that can be prescribed by a doctor and dispensed from a controlled pharmacy.  http://www.rxlist.com/marinol-drug.htm

I live in a suburban neighborhood in Fort Collins, CO that is filled with middle to upper middle income families.  Crime is essentially non-existent and the homes are all single family dwellings filled with families that have roughly 2.54 kids each.  The only crime other than an occasional vehicle break-in was an armed Home Invasion Robbery.  What prompted this to happen?  The two residents of the home are medical marijuana patients.  When the masked gunmen forced their way into the home they asked for one thing:  marijuana.  They didn’t want money or electronics…just the drugs.

1. More stringent guidelines to obtain a medical marijuana card.
   • Conditions like ear aches should not be included
   • If they aren’t going to be more specific, then legalize marijuana so we can hopefully get past the crime that has come with the law
2. Better zoning regulations so we don’t have dispensaries set up next to each other, located in residential areas or near schools.
3. Mandatory security in these dispensaries to reduce violent robberies and burglaries.
4. Better definitions of a caregiver and restrictions on growing quantities.  This too is turning residential neighborhoods into marijuana farms.
5. Dispensing marijuana should be done through a controlled environment like a pharmacy, not the corner house where Guido is set up.
6. Better education of patients
   • This does not give them the right to smoke and drive
   • This does not give them the right to smoke then go to work and operate a forklift
7. The granting of a medical marijuana card should require the prescribing doctor to visit with the patient’s Primary Care Physician and thoroughly review the patient’s medical history.  Is there a history of drug abuse?  Is this appropriate therapy for the combination of their conditions?

Following the passing of the new healthcare system, it will be interesting to see if we will now begin covering the cost of medical marijuana.  Will Little Johnny down the street be able to walk into the local dispensary, choose from Raspberry flavored marijuana and have us pick up the tab?

Squeaky…

Usually at the end of my post each month I list the three “bad nuts” of the month.  This month’s posting will basically be nothing but the bad nuts of the past few days.

Health Care reform has now become law of the land and despite my own questions on whether it is actually enough done, it is a big effing deal to quote the Vice President, and a step in the right direction for the country that has been a long time coming.  However, it is now abundantly clear if it was not before that conservatives completely lack any sense of dignity, humanity or civility within their course of actions and the words they use. There will be many examples I leave out, as there are far too many to put into the space I really want to take up here.

Tea Party protesters on Capitol Hill last weekend repeatedly shout the n word at members of the Black Caucus as they walked by the protest and shouted other obscenity laced rants as well.  They also threw out homophobic slurs at openly gay congressman Barney Frank. This is the least threatening example of the loss of control the right has made a turn towards in the final days and aftermath of healthcare reform, but is still a shiny example of the ignorance and intolerance on the right.

At a Rochester, NY Democratic Party office a brick with a note with this quote attached, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,”  was thrown through a window. No one was harmed other than the window in this instance, but it is another quite fitting example of what conservatives really are looking for these days as many other offices across the state of New York and around the county have had bricks with such revolution inciting quotes attached to them.

While House Republican leader “Hell No You Can’t” John Boehner passively spoke out that the climate needs to change to a positive to get his party back in power as that will get the real job they want done. It’s is a little too late for his change of heart over the flames he and his party has stoked for well over a year now. In the past few days he has also made countless references to many Representatives in congress who have been getting death threats as being a dead man for how they voted. More than likely he was hopefully meaning politically speaking, but it is the passive aggressive stoking the flames of hate in his masses to get them to seek violent action over civil discourse over issues. So in reality his actions in the recent pass fully outweigh the passive rebuking of threats of violence in the aftermath of the bill passing.

Congressman Bart Stupak hasn’t just had to deal with Congressman Randy Neugebauer shouting “baby killer” as he spoke on the house floor, but has become the poster child for the right wing nuttery’s rage. Here’s a sampling of what he has had to go through. Endless voicemail messages to his office and home many simply stating, “I hope you die.” others with a more prophetic viewpoint. “There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill and all of those thoughts projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you.” 

Also his office received a fax depicting him on a noose with the caption “All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends either by the hand of man or by the hand of God.”  All this for deciding to vote for healthcare because he got his exact wording put through in an executive order instead of holding up the process any further by having it inserted into the text of the bill. Despite the fact that in reality the wording did not need to be there in the first place because well it was already law and nothing done was changing that anyways, but I digress.

Never to be absent from stoking the flames of anger, the queen of the nutjob right, Sarah Palin, continues to be her usual self. The two main instances of note of the past few days have been commenting that Republicans don’t need to regroup after healthcare had passed, but need to reload the gun and take more shots at Democrats. There must be some continual obsession with guns for Sister Sarah as she also depicted the pictures of 20 House Democrats and the states they represent with crosshairs of a gun and mentioned that these seats in states won by her (i guess she forgets that McCain was the head of the ticket) as targets to dispose of in the next election. I get the cute play with guns and everything, but when your supporters obviously aren’t playing with a full deck then you probably do not need to continue to put this kind of imagery.

Even though his network now only allows about two minutes a day of actual coverage of the passing of the healthcare reform bill, Glenn Beck has not been absent from the fanning the flames on the right. He has now referred to the passing of healthcare reform as a mother spanking a child. And now our decision as a is whether we love our mother and want to hug them or to we want to pick up guns against them. Beck was more for the guns approach to getting back at “mother” approach. So if you hear any news of tea party people shooting their mothers in the next week or so you know who to blame on that one.

Like I said before there are too many examples as of late of incivility from conservatives, leaders and followers to list here. It is clear that the Republican Party has reaped what they have sown over the past year in these past few days as the climate has boiled over even more. They may shy away from it in public light passively now, but in reality it is what they have wanted all along. In the end it is clear that one thing for conservatives is, that civility has been lost and I don’t think they’ll find their way back to it any time soon.

“Sticking to Your Values”

“If you don’t stick to your values when they’re being tested, they’re not values, they’re hobbies.”

-Jon Stewart

That might be my favorite modern quote, because it’s one that rings so true these days, on both sides of the aisle.  Every single president elect in recent times has stood up when the votes were tallied and the opposing party has conceded and given a speech about how they will change this and make that right and accomplish this.  They say they will work with the other party.  They claim we need to stick to our values, to make our country great again.  In the end, most of the things we say end up getting tossed out the window.  The context of that quote was in response to Bill O’Reilly saying that sometimes we need to compromise our values to keep our country safe.

Every single one of us who went to grade school in the United States grew up learning the core values this country was founded on and later built upon:  freedom, opportunity, and tolerance.  We have all come to be told that justice is blind, and the law treats all equally.  If this is the case, why did the United States go against two documents it signed – the treaties of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (signed by Reagan) – and torture captives at Guantanamo Bay?  We generally react pretty strongly when a country says one thing and does another, especially something we disagree on, why should we not expect others to do the same about us? 

In World War II both the Japanese and the Germans used waterboarding on prisoners.  This was decried as torture by our country.  This was declared as wrong by the Geneva Convention.  In spite of this the United States, under the direction of at least Vice President Dick Cheney, authorized waterboarding to be used on captives at Guantanamo Bay.  He not only admitted as much, he’s been openly critical of the current administration for their official stance against torture.  So we have a former vice president who has openly admitted to authorizing torture, and has said torture saved lives despite evidence to the contrary.

Almost as bad, we have a current president who is refusing to investigate the previous administration under the guise of extending an olive branch to the other side.  Even if no crime was technically committed, the spirit of the Geneva Convention and the UNCAT were broken giving the US a black eye in the view of the world.  Just another reason for the rest of the world to view the US as an aging bully, throwing waning power around because it’s scared.  Going right along with the scared bully image is J.D. Hayworth, running for John McCain’s seat in Arizona in 2010.  Appealing to the terrorist-fearing crowd, he recently said not only was Dick Cheney right to authorize torture, he didn’t go far enough.  We should not only be waterboarding anyone who might have information to give, we should be breaking fingers and shoving bamboo shoots under toenails.  The message I’m getting:  torture is wrong when the Japanese do it to us in WWII, but we’re allowed to use it when we feel like because we’re the US.

Dropping your values when it suits you is nothing new in politics.  Joe Lieberman claimed that he would fight for health care for everyone in Connecticut when he ran for senate in 2008, now he’s the poster child for me-first, just-vote-against-the-other-guy politics.  After the first World Trade Center in 1993, then-mayor Rudy Guilliani praised the US civillian justice system for its handling of Omar Abdel-Rahmanm.  When Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in 2006, Guilliani expressed displeasure at him not getting a death sentence from a civillian jury, but said it shows the United States is commited to fairness and law. 

Fast forward to 2010 when Barrack Obama said he wants to shut down Guantanimo Bay and try the remaining terrorists in NYC and Guilliani acts like Chicken Little and claims the trials will make a mockery of the US justice system and our country is ill-suited to handling terrorist trials.  Little Fact, Rudy:  91% of terrorist trials in the last 12 years have resulted in a conviction.  I would expect more from a man who built his pre-political career as a tough prosecutor, but since he can’t go two breaths without utterng 9/11 I’m not surprised.

It’s not all partisan, though.  One of my biggest issues with Barrack Obama is his claiming on the campaign trail that any alleged US torture needs to be investigated.  President Obama has dropped the ball on this, as there is no sign of an official investigation and I can only assume it’s both a futile olive-branch gesture to the right and a pre-emptive covering of his own butt once he gets out of office.

Sticking to your values is a rare, rare thng in politics these days.  To finish up here, I’d like to salute two very, very different men in politics who have stuck to their values in recent times:  Dennis Kucinich and Ken Starr.  Congressman Kucinich as spoken out against the current health care bill being tossed around for a “reconciliation” vote because it does not contain a public option or a single-payer system.  He has been steadfast on the issue to the point of being willing to be the deciding vote against it.  Ken Starr recently spoke out against Liz Cheney for attacking US Justice Department lawyers as an Al-Quaeda sympathists because they defended terrorists in the US justice system.  Mr. Starr says that lawyers have a fine tradition of trying their best no matter who they’re assigned to defend, and he would do the same.  Sticking to your values may be rare in politics these days, but it need not be one side or the other.  In the end it makes you look like a far, far better person.

Rather than focusing on the many subjects I could have this month.  I felt that I had to share this information because I enjoyed learning about myself.  I hope that you’ll take this survey and really enjoy learning more about yourself too.

I hear the terms liberal, progressive, conservative and libertarian a lot in the news today.  Last week, while watching Glenn Beck, I took a survey that helped to (generally) place you in a category based on your political ideals.  If you’re interested in where you fit based on answering 10 questions, I suggest taking this survey:

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

This will help confirm your beliefs, but could also leave you with several questions.  Allow me to explain.

I’ve always considered myself a hardcore conservative.  My brother-in-law once sent me the following pic to use for my web postings which I believed fit perfectly.

 

 [Editor’s note: image is from http://www.thoseshirts.com/hcr.html]

After taking this survey, it confirmed my conservative ideals, but it also indicated that I tent to lean somewhat libertarian as well.  At the end of the survey, it informed me that my selections indicate that I’m a Conservative Libertarian.  That was news to me.  That immediately concerned me though.

We all have our generalizations about groups and I’m no different.  I started wondering if that meant I needed to grow a beard, buy a cabin in the mountains and start stock piling fertilizer.  A libertarian?  When I think of Libertarians, I always thought of Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber.

It helped reading information on several sites explaining what that meant for me.  Here are some general definitions as I understand them.

Libertarian – The word I would use to describe Libertarians is freedom.  I see their main stance is that they want to be left to do what they want as long as they are not harming anyone else.  They believe everyone else has the same rights that they do.  They are based on tolerance and acting responsibly.  One site used the phrase live and let live to describe Libertarians.  They believe in very limited government and don’t like government meddling.  Like Conservatives, traditions do play a big part in their ideals.  Think of the Gadsden flags, I think they fit closely with this group.

Conservatives – I believe the word of focus here should be tradition.  Conservatives believe in maintaining the values and beliefs that we have traditionally held.  In God We Trust should be on our currency, 2^nd Amendment Rights, use of force (military) to maintain peace, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, etc.  Conservatives much like Libertarians believe in smaller government, lower taxes (trickle-down economics), strong (traditional) family values, etc.  Government is there out of necessity and it serves a purpose but it should not tell us how to live or restrict our freedoms.

Liberal – I would describe liberals as focusing on inclusion.  Liberal ideals believe in providing a good life for everyone.  They aren’t fans of the traditional values that Conservatives value and they look to make the world more inclusive for everyone in spite of what their values are.  Many of the traditions that Conservatives value tend to feel extreme to Liberals.  Our currency should not include God on it, whose God are we referring to?  Will that make others feel left out?  Think of the Ten Commandments monument that was removed from the courthouse in Montana.  Think of the colored Christmas lights on public land at Christmas time, Manger scenes at Christmas, etc.  I see liberals giving up their own rights so that they don’t feel like they’re stepping on anyone else’s rights.

Progressive – This term is mis-used today.  Progressive to me indicates someone who leans liberal, but they exercise it more strongly (liberal on steroids).  Some people use the term Progressive to describe socialist beliefs which isn’t accurate.  I see how that confusion would take place, but I think socialism is more extreme than progressiveness.  Progressives believe many of the same things that liberals do, but they’re willing to give up more to make it happen.  I think we see many more progressives in today’s world than liberals, although many people calling themselves progressives believe in socialism.  Progressives believe in big government, but they don’t want to give everything to the government as to Socialists.  I see progressives as throwing traditions out the door and starting fresh.  They definitely want to provide for others and can’t stand to see anyone not on the equal.  They believe that government has the obligation to provide for people.

Socialism – Give everything to the government and let the government work everything out.  They will provide food, medicine, housing and any other essentials that they determine necessary.  The government knows best and it is not your job to question that. You have the obligation to serve the community with the skills you have and you won’t necessarily be rewarded based on what that job is.  For example, my boss and I both work in Systems.  We would likely be given the same size home and allowed the same “stuff”, it doesn’t matter that he is a manager and in our current market would make $50,000 more than I do.  In a socialist system, we would receive the same thing.  (Sounds a lot like Unions where your compensation is based on time in grade and not performance)  The Nolan chart uses the term Statist, which I correlate to socialist. 

Of course, you can be blended versions of these categories.  Conservative Libertarian, Progressive Socialist, etc.  I fall into the category of Conservative Libertarian and I completely understand why.  I believe in many of the traditional beliefs that the country was founded on.  I am deeply religious and my religion is important to me.  The life of the unborn, the fact that our laws are founded on the bible and ten commandments, etc.  I also relate to the Libertarian party which floored me.  However, I now understand that they do have values which are important to me.  Small government, laws that don’t restrict my freedoms, live and let live as long as you’re not hurting others and low taxes.  Sometimes these values don’t mesh well with my conservative values and it’s interesting to see which one wins. 

Barack Obama is probably a Progressive Socialist.  That helps explain why he relates to the liberals and progressives, but the socialist part of him is like nails on the chalk board to people like me.  Taxes drive me absolutely crazy.  “Spreading the wealth around” goes against every principle I have.  I lived in Illinois for a while and it nearly killed me each month paying our property taxes.  Now, we’re back in Colorado where the property taxes are more reasonable, but our tax structure is changing under the current government.  Colorado just implemented new taxes on food, candy, soda and internet sales.  Internet sales!!!  That is a big irritant for me because I shop online for everything.  This really upsets me, but fits with the liberal, progressive and/or socialist ideals.  High taxes lead to bigger government and the ability to provide for others that choose not to (and the few that can’t).

Squeaky…

A week ago today an act of domestic terrorism occurred in Austin, Texas, when Joseph Stack flew a plane into an office complex housing an IRS field office. That’s right I called it a terrorist act, which is what it is. Maybe those of you on the right feel that no it can’t be terrorism. After all he’s not muslim or doesn’t have a funny sounding name, or that he’s one of us. Call it whatever you want and live in your own reality, but the fact of the matter is that it was a terrorist act.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

A dictionary definition not good enough for you? How about the legal interpretation of it under United States law – “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets.”

The argument here from the right would be that it isn’t terrorism, he was just someone disgruntled with the IRS, don’t we all hate the IRS? However the truth of the matter Stack’s actions were well premeditated and against a non-combatant target with the express intention to coerce people and government to change their action through his own political and ideological reasons. Sounds like terrorism to me. We have a winner.

Where’s the premeditation and ideology you ask? Well its quite clear in is manifesto of a suicide note he decided to post on his business website. Looking into the source code it became clear that the note had been originally written two days prior to the incident and revised a whopping 27 times before its final draft status to be posted that day before he decided to stick it to the man. The little piece has the usual ramblings of the right wing loon, government bailouts, tax laws, the Catholic church, big government, 9/11as the reasons things come to this. However also in the ramblings is a call for violent revolt hoping that his actions that day will cause other people to take such action against the government as well.

Sounds like premeditation and clear coercion based on political idealism to me.

It’s nothing new that we don’t like to call a spade a spade in these circumstances when a white man in America does an act of terrorism, heck Newt Gingrich and others sympathised with Timothy McVeigh.

Looks like history repeats itself as just earlier this week Iowa Congressman Steve King decided to come out and score points with the fringe nutjobs by sympathizing with Mr. Stack and his views and his actions and declaring they were justified because it will be a “happy day in America” when the IRS is gone. He also noted that Stack would not have had a target if we just would have abolished the IRS when he stated they should and Stack’s actions were noble. Granted the Congressman later came out with the usual my words have been taken out of context defense, but they were not as there is video evidence of it. Thanks for playing Congressman. The noble action I think should come out of this is for the voters of Iowa to vote his pandering arse out of office in November.

Anyways it is clear to me that someone spouting “violence is the only answer” and calling for others to do the same is just as much of an incitation to terror as Alalhu Akbar. Call it what it was TERRORISM.

And now for the bad nuts of the past month, other than Rep. King in no particular order…

Bad Nut No. 1: Former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo

In his opening address to the Tea Party Convention he stated amongst many other idiotic and appalling things, that if we would have still had literacy test like they used to in the south then we would not have to had to deal with a President Obama, because if it was not for non white people he would not have been elected. For one thing Mr. Tancredo I would love to have an actual civics literacy test as a requirement when one registers to vote, because 99.9% of the teabaggers would fail. However the literacy tests you speak of wanting to return had nothing to deal with literacy of government and more of something like how many bubbles are in a bar of soap? And white people didn’t have to take the test.

Bad Nut No. 2: Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverly Hills in the 2010 Miss California Pageant

Move over Carrie Prejean. There is a new new flavor of the week in nutcase beauty queens seeking their fifteen minutes now that yours is well up. In a statement on same sex marriage Ashley stated that homosexuality is wrong because God says so and those who do will be put to death and then went on to quote a passage from Leviticus. “If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.” I guess God is all for boob jobs and swimsuits though? Ah the religious right, so picky and choosy with the biblical references that count.

Bad Nut No. 3: Politicians and People who joked, statused, tweeted, etc about the recent snowfalls in DC.

Not really a surprising thing, but it seemed to be the favorite thing of everyone on the right to do lately. Stuff like “Where in the World is Al Gore when global warming is debunked.” For one, a single occurence does not prove or disprove anything on the subject. But “Global Warming” is more the catchphrase put on the more basic terminology of climate change. Which a shift towards amounts of snow not seen before (if it were to be a continuing trend) in an entire season would be. Or maybe something like an unseasonably warm period wrecking havoc for Olympic organizers at the start of this years games. Didn’t see many tweets from the left about this proving global warming.

Bye, Bye, Bayh. No, it’s not the N’Sync song I’m talking about. It’s Evan Bayh, the rarely buzzed about Senator from Indiana. Bayh announced on February 15 (coincidently just days before his filing deadline) that he wouldn’t be seeking reelection to the Senate. First, Kennedy in the House and now Bayh. Now, many people believe that this is due to the failing support of the Mighty and Powerful Oz…or Ob. Which is quite possible. Maybe he just decided he didn’t want “to be just another fool in this game for two so” he’s leaving them behind. Or could it be that now that healthcare reform is considered dead and the fact that his wife, Susan, is on many corporate boards, including health Insurance mogul Wellpoint, he knew that he would not stand a chance.

Many media outlets weren’t even saying he was a Democrat, which I find hysterical. I think it is “Tearing up their heart” that Democrats are bailing ship. “I wanted to see him out that door” even though I’ve heard him referred to as a conservative. HA! He’s a conservative just like a RINO would be conservative. He just didn’t “want to be the loser and I’ve had enough”. But the truth remains he’s “Gone”.

Speaking of being “Gone”, anyone seen Al Gore lately? Last week, a Senate hearing was postponed on “Global Warming” due to a record snowfall in D.C. That’s all I got on that. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

I just wanted to add, Go Team USA!! Bring home the Gold! But don’t tell the Obama Administration that you did. They may want to melt it down for another stimulus. That being said, it’s been one year since the stimulus bill passed. Only 6% of Americans believe the stimulus created jobs. 7% of Americans believe Elvis Presley is still alive. Who knows, maybe the crazy cat lady down the street who visits Graceland every year is on to something. Or not.

Ask any republican politician and they’ll tell you we’re fighting a war, regardless of the fact that no war was ever declared by congress.  Despite this, combating terrorism is something that is often on top of the list of priorities of things to do when you’re running the United States, or attempting to scare the general public into submission.  You’d think we’d want the top intelligence possible when fighting terrorism, and to do so clearly we’d want the best linguists in both the Farsi and Arabic languages.  Yet more than a few linguistic experts have been dismissed from the military for being gay in the past few years alone.  Don’t believe me?  Do a Google search with the phrase “how many military experts have been dismissed for being gay?”

I’m sure there are a ton of boilerplate arguments as to why we need to keep gays out of the military, or at the least keep them from coming out.  Let’s go over them one by one, and if I missed your argument please feel free to express it in the comments after this article.

1)  “Homosexuality destroys unit cohesion”

A recent article from UC Davis shows that this is simply not true.(1)  The TL:DR of this article is that task focus is greater than social acceptance and the military is a task-oriented organization.  Our military got over integrating minorities.  It got over integrating women.  It will get over integrating homosexuals.

2)  “Homosexuality is bad for morale”

As early as the mid 1990’s, the American Psychological Association stated this simply isn’t true.  Based on studies of foreign military systems that allow homosexuals, there is little to no evidence that there is disruption or loss of effectiveness.  (2)

3)  “Military leaders have expressed in the past that allowing homosexuals to serve would be disruptive”

Many of those military leaders have now changed their mind.  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who both spoke against gays in the military as recently as 2007 have since changed their minds.  (3)

4)  “Most members of the military would oppose homosexuals in their unit”

 There are some polls that show a sizable percentage of military members oppose openly homosexual fellow soldiers, but those polls are generally from 2006 or earlier.  A Zogby poll of recent veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan showed that 3/4 of them were comfortable interacting with homosexuals in their military life.  (4)

Now a few pros:

The cost savings alone should be worth it to the right, who continually try to label themselves as fiscally sound.  In a 2006 report the Pentagon stated that discharging gays from the military cost well over a quarter of a billion dollars in lost training, re-training and recruiting. (5) 

A bigger issue to your average republican politician, who continually bash the current administration for being “too soft” on terrorists, should be the loss of much-needed linguists.  In May of 2007, the Pentagon discharged 57 Arabic linguists for being gay.  Iraq was perhaps at its most fragile at that time, and Afghanistan was just beginning to flare up – should this have been the time to bend rules and keep some of your most valuable intelligence assets on hand?  For you sports fans, this seems to me to be like firing half your scouts a month before the draft.

Finally, there’s the moral issue that some will argue.  America was founded on moral principals and needs to stand by those principals while we fight those who seek to undermine us and destroy our way of life.  I counter that by say this country became great by embracing diversity and being open about change.  Some of our greatest moments include the abolition of slavery and the women’s rights movement.  If we don’t allow gays to openly serve in our military, what does that say about us?  I say it makes us no better than the intolerance and hate we claim to fight in the name of fighting terrorism.  To those who still oppose gays in the military, why do you hate America?

1)  http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_cohesion.html

2)  http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/military.aspx

3)  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

4)  http://www.gaymilitarysignal.com/071106Steinman.html

5)  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-14-dont-ask-report_x.htm