Paging Governor Jindal.
The man who suggested that Republicans stop treating stupidity as though it were an elective at Liberty University, must be hiding in the swamps of Louisiana. The following tidbits have been gleaned from the media in just the last few weeks. Please understand that I'm not making this stuff up. Actually you couldn't make this stuff up. Tragically, Americans are electing these people to make their laws. I wouldn't let these guys make me a gin and tonic.
Our first candidate for the "you couldn't be this dumb" award (also known as the Todd Akin Asshat Trophy) is Stacy Campfield, Republican member of the Tennessee Senate. In a recent interview with Sirius radio's Michelangelo Signorile, State Senator Campfield told the world "Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community. It was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall. My understanding is that it's virtually - not completely but virtually impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex." There's more but I'm getting light headed. Mr. Campfield may have set the modern record for having crammed the most misinformation, hateful lies and just plain bullshit into just four sentences. Note: The former record holder was Dick Cheney in his discussion of the Iraq War.
Brother Stacy's "humping the chimps" theory is the natural outgrowth of a lifetime of gay-bashing. He has introduced countless anti-gay measures before both houses of the Tennessee legislature. He is famous for his "don't say gay" laws which forbid the mention of homosexuality in public schools. He has proposed that students' questions regarding gays be answered only privately by teachers and then reported to the student's parents. (If the teachers in Tennessee are as poorly informed as Mr. Campfield, perhaps they should avoid the subject altogether.) Campfield is a product of Regents College, whose mascot is a caveman riding a tyrannosaurus rex. These people think the Flintstones is a documentary. (Thank you, Louis Black.) Mr. Campfield apparently thinks that the Almighty put him on the earth to smite the mo's. Nevertheless, I'll eat my computer if old Stacy doesn't have a few silk kimonos tucked away in his closet. Guys who yell this loud are positively hiding a drawer full of satin thongs. Don't get in an accident, Senator Campfield.
Next on our dais is the Republican National Committee, fresh from their spring meeting in Los Angeles. The RNC met in LA so that they could spend a few days trying to peddle their message to the Hollywood crowd. As you may have noticed, the ranks of celebrities who support the GOP is a bit thin on the ground. Aside from stand-up comedians Dennis Miller and Clint Eastwood, the majority of the film industry heavies lean more to the left. Thus far the effort has been disappointing. Converts thusfar include the "Can you hear me now?" guy from the Verizon ads and two of the chorus boys from the "Springtime For Hitler" number in The Producers.
Perhaps the effort to woo the movie folk would be more successful if the RNC didn't insist on the circular firing squad approach to social policy. During their recent meeting they bravely passed a resolution reaffirming their commitment to the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. WOW! talk about a bold step to broaden the base. Who says the RNC is a bunch of crabby old white men? These guys are visionaries. They might even be ready to repeal prohibition, or condemn segregation.
This isn't your father's Republican Party. It's more like your great grandfather's Republican Party. Why would a political organization, especially one with calcification issues, take a wholly unnecessary position on an issue clearly trending in the other direction? The Committee was apparently frightened by social conservatives who threatened to abandon the Party if the members showed any softening on this issue. (The conservatives contacted the RNC using their rotary-dial phones and parchment stationary. None of that new-fangled tech stuff for them.)
The RNC was sufficiently impressed by the threat that they produced not one but three resolutions on the subject: They reaffirmed the RNC's support for heterosexual marriage; they then urged the Supreme Court to uphold the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, California's homophobic gay marriage ban; (Fortunately, this petition is expected to have the same effect as petitioning the moon to orbit the earth more quickly.); and finally they reconfirmed the "core values" of their 2012 platform that served Mitt Romney so well.
This last resolution was championed by Michigan's Dave Agema. Dave caused a stir when he posted a note on his Facebook page referencing the "filthy lifestyle of homosexuals. I can't decide which is more shocking: that this asshat has a Facebook page or that he knows any homosexuals at all let alone filthy ones. All the gays I know are fanatical neat freaks.
Who says you can't polish a turd? The RNC is proving that the best way forward is to go backward. You have to admire rats swimming toward a sinking ship. There's a lot less traffic going in their direction. Still it's difficult to understand how the Republicans expect to win the political races in 2014 and 2016 if they insist on shooting themselves in the foot with the starter's pistol. Their original mantra of low taxes and small government still has appeal. However, if you insist on shovelling manure on your message in the hope that it will grow, don't be surprised if the smell drives potential converts away. Remember, the Obama-haters will be neutralize in 2016 and those old white men that make up your base are leaving with greater and greater frequency to join a new group, namely the choir invisible (aka, the dead). Note to Rance Priebus: resolutions in defence of marriage don't make you look principled... they make you look ossified...sort of like Clint Eastwood.
And finally, what listing of dumb Republicans would be complete without a word or two from East Texas? That delightful slice of America that brought you Louie Gomert has also contributed Steve Stockman. Determined to look every bit as clueless as his brother East Texas Republicans, Steve has authored a new bumper sticker, to wit, "If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted". Pretty hard to argue with that logic. It is expected that the Congressman will receive considerable campaign contributions from the "Firearms For Fetuses" organization and the unborn wing of the NRA. Mr. Stockman has not made it clear exactly how he plans to smuggle weapons into America's wombs but the guns will need to be really small. Seriously, is there the slightest chance that Mexico would consider annexing East Texas? We could promise to take the drug cartels. I honestly believe they would do less harm.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
...or will the continuing discussion of guns and gun control cause many people to use one on themselves?
Anyone remember attending a business meeting in say, 1977? What do you remember? Well, it was mostly men and, eight out of ten were smoking. And God help the prig in the room who suggested that those eight smokers put the smokes out. Smoking was as much a part of the culture as martinis at lunch and gas-guzzling cars. Smoking was permitted everywhere: in stores, banks, phone booths even in hospitals. All of our heroes smoked. James Bond liked Turkish cigs. Johnny Carson smoked on the Tonight Show. The point is that smoking was as ingrained in the American way of life as television and cell phones are today. So how did that change? It changed slowly and culturally.
So now let's talk about guns.
First we should clear away some of the silly rhetoric associated with this issue:
1) "Laws won't stop mass killings like Sandy Hook" True but irrelevant. Gun laws like mandatory background checks and assault weapons bans will have no effect on criminal behavior or the irrational acts of the mentally disturbed. Those laws might, however, make it just a little bit harder for crazies to kill people. So where's the harm?
2) "The Second Amendment is clear and absolute regarding gun ownership." Hogwash. There are exceptions and modifications to all of the Constitutional Amendments. You have free speech but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You have press freedom but child pornography is illegal. Ask George W. Bush how he feels about the rules on search and seizure having signed and implemented the Patriot Act. We interpret the Bill of Rights for good or ill all the time and those interpretations inform our understanding of Constitutional amendments.
3) "Law abiding citizens own the majority of guns and they shouldn't have their rights interfered with in any way." Nonsense. We interfere with "law-abiding citizens" all the time. (BTW, please ask the NRA to stop referring to gun owning "law-abiding citizens" like they were oppressed saints. Owning a gun lawfully does not confer some sort of knighthood.) You need a driver's license and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. In many states you must wear a helmet to drive a motorcycle. Seatbelts are mandatory. Hunting and fishing licenses are needed in many areas to hunt and fish. The idea that a gun is sacrosanct and should therefore be restriction-free is misguided and perverse.
4) "Gun laws will not stop criminals from obtaining and using guns" True but who cares? Criminals will always be able to get guns in the same way that drug users will find ways to get drugs. We should not be concerned about the victims of crime so much as we should be concerned about the victims of accidents and suicides. Forget Sandy Hook. Forget Aurora, Colorado. How many children are killed each year in accidental shootings and how many would it take before the NRA stopped posturing? How many suicides would be prevented if the tortured souls, bent on self destruction had tried to kill themselves with a less guaranteed method? Now weigh these tragedies against the supposed inconvenience of gun-owning citizens.
5) "Guns in your house will make you safer" Really? For every one time a gun is used in home defence there are: 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts and 4 accidents involving guns in or around the home.
Guns kill because guns are handy; not to muggers or burglars but to despondent fathers who kill their families. They're available to troubled teenagers who are tired of being bullied; to jilted lovers with "no reason to live". How many thousands of lives would have been spared if there wasn't a gun available to settle a dispute, express a rage or permanently stop an unbearable anguish? Guns kill children because, when found in the home, they present the same fascination as matches. And comparing guns to knifes or hammers as potential deadly weapons is ludicrous. Guns are a single purpose tool. They exist only to kill.
N.B. While I was writing this, a six year old in New Jersey died after being shot by a four-year-old on Tuesday. Are you listening Mr. LaPierre?
Whatever perverse genome exists in American DNA (no other culture or nationality seems to have it) must be identified and modified. We must begin to treat gun ownership as out of the main stream. The question "why would you own a gun?" must carry the same social disapproval as asking "why would you still smoke?" or "Why are you so quick to slap your child?" We don't want to take away your "right" to own a gun, only your desire. A person wearing a pistol into a bar in Fort Worth should be subject to ridicule (but perhaps with a bit of circumspection). A proponent of personal armories in their basements should be viewed with the same derision as someone hoarding Twinkies. Virtually all of the civilized world views America's obsession with guns as aberrant behavior. Why don't we?
You know in your heart that, confronted with a mugger or a burglar you are not going to shoot your way out. You're just not. A few hours of training will not qualify you to do anything more than put up your hands and allow the thief to steal and sell another gun...yours. A woman in Ft. Worth shot and killed an intruder who, as it turns out, was at the wrong house. Perfectly legal except one man, 29 years old, is dead and one woman will have to live with the shooting on her conscience. Had she been unarmed she would have suffered no more than a serious scare and the intruder might have spent a few hours in a cell. This probably wouldn't have happened in Italy or Poland or Japan. If we don't abandon the gunfighter, macho, frontiersman notion that gun ownership equals home security, we will continue to kills thousands every year almost all, unnecessarily. Guns don't kill people, stupid, myopic, misguided gun-rights nuts kill people...and they kill a lot of them.
So now let's talk about guns.
First we should clear away some of the silly rhetoric associated with this issue:
1) "Laws won't stop mass killings like Sandy Hook" True but irrelevant. Gun laws like mandatory background checks and assault weapons bans will have no effect on criminal behavior or the irrational acts of the mentally disturbed. Those laws might, however, make it just a little bit harder for crazies to kill people. So where's the harm?
2) "The Second Amendment is clear and absolute regarding gun ownership." Hogwash. There are exceptions and modifications to all of the Constitutional Amendments. You have free speech but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You have press freedom but child pornography is illegal. Ask George W. Bush how he feels about the rules on search and seizure having signed and implemented the Patriot Act. We interpret the Bill of Rights for good or ill all the time and those interpretations inform our understanding of Constitutional amendments.
3) "Law abiding citizens own the majority of guns and they shouldn't have their rights interfered with in any way." Nonsense. We interfere with "law-abiding citizens" all the time. (BTW, please ask the NRA to stop referring to gun owning "law-abiding citizens" like they were oppressed saints. Owning a gun lawfully does not confer some sort of knighthood.) You need a driver's license and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. In many states you must wear a helmet to drive a motorcycle. Seatbelts are mandatory. Hunting and fishing licenses are needed in many areas to hunt and fish. The idea that a gun is sacrosanct and should therefore be restriction-free is misguided and perverse.
4) "Gun laws will not stop criminals from obtaining and using guns" True but who cares? Criminals will always be able to get guns in the same way that drug users will find ways to get drugs. We should not be concerned about the victims of crime so much as we should be concerned about the victims of accidents and suicides. Forget Sandy Hook. Forget Aurora, Colorado. How many children are killed each year in accidental shootings and how many would it take before the NRA stopped posturing? How many suicides would be prevented if the tortured souls, bent on self destruction had tried to kill themselves with a less guaranteed method? Now weigh these tragedies against the supposed inconvenience of gun-owning citizens.
5) "Guns in your house will make you safer" Really? For every one time a gun is used in home defence there are: 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts and 4 accidents involving guns in or around the home.
Guns kill because guns are handy; not to muggers or burglars but to despondent fathers who kill their families. They're available to troubled teenagers who are tired of being bullied; to jilted lovers with "no reason to live". How many thousands of lives would have been spared if there wasn't a gun available to settle a dispute, express a rage or permanently stop an unbearable anguish? Guns kill children because, when found in the home, they present the same fascination as matches. And comparing guns to knifes or hammers as potential deadly weapons is ludicrous. Guns are a single purpose tool. They exist only to kill.
N.B. While I was writing this, a six year old in New Jersey died after being shot by a four-year-old on Tuesday. Are you listening Mr. LaPierre?
Whatever perverse genome exists in American DNA (no other culture or nationality seems to have it) must be identified and modified. We must begin to treat gun ownership as out of the main stream. The question "why would you own a gun?" must carry the same social disapproval as asking "why would you still smoke?" or "Why are you so quick to slap your child?" We don't want to take away your "right" to own a gun, only your desire. A person wearing a pistol into a bar in Fort Worth should be subject to ridicule (but perhaps with a bit of circumspection). A proponent of personal armories in their basements should be viewed with the same derision as someone hoarding Twinkies. Virtually all of the civilized world views America's obsession with guns as aberrant behavior. Why don't we?
You know in your heart that, confronted with a mugger or a burglar you are not going to shoot your way out. You're just not. A few hours of training will not qualify you to do anything more than put up your hands and allow the thief to steal and sell another gun...yours. A woman in Ft. Worth shot and killed an intruder who, as it turns out, was at the wrong house. Perfectly legal except one man, 29 years old, is dead and one woman will have to live with the shooting on her conscience. Had she been unarmed she would have suffered no more than a serious scare and the intruder might have spent a few hours in a cell. This probably wouldn't have happened in Italy or Poland or Japan. If we don't abandon the gunfighter, macho, frontiersman notion that gun ownership equals home security, we will continue to kills thousands every year almost all, unnecessarily. Guns don't kill people, stupid, myopic, misguided gun-rights nuts kill people...and they kill a lot of them.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
...or could white smoke at the Vatican be a warning that the house is on fire?
We have a Pope.
He's a white male over 75. He was elected by 117 Cardinals who were appointed by either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. His views on social issues are well documented. He is conservative enough to run for Congress in any one of six East Texas districts. So, because the election took place around Passover, I am reminded of that famous Seder question "Why is this night different from all others"? Answer; it's not. Aside from the speed with which the Cardinals made a decision there's not much new here. (I am reliably informed that the decision was made urgently what with more than 100 old men forced to share a bathroom.) And after all, Cardinal Bergoglio was runner-up to Benedict XVI in 2005 (It seems that Cardinal Bergoglio was leading, until the tricky talent competition when he dropped his crosier.)
Seriously, Francis I is as likely to bring the Church into this century as Rick Santorum is to marry his mailman. It's mystifying that the election of every pope (I've seen six so far) is followed by a wave of unwarranted expectation for change. Commentators and journalists busy themselves for hours reading the tea leaves for clues as to what steps the new Pontiff might take to improve Catholicism. "He took the bus to work and lived in a modest apartment in Buenos Aires"; "he's a Jesuit, he's never worked in Rome, he has never had his mind warped by that viper's den that is the Roman Curia." Well, pardon my Latin but BFD!
The greatest irony in Catholicism was the sight of nuns weeping openly in Vatican Square when the new Vicar of Christ was announced. I can only guess they're crying over their continued pitiful treatment at the hands of the geezers in the red beanies; a plight that's likely to change around the same time that openly gay priests will be allowed to marry...each other.
Watching the Church deal with its shrinking flock and legal nightmares is like watching the Republicans attempting to fix their issues. The only difference between them is membership. The Church has 1.2 billion. The RNC has 34. (The same number that regularly attend Mass in France.) Before you can fix a problem, you have to admit you have one. The bishops and cardinals in Rome have convinced themselves that issues like child molestation are isolated incidents blown out of proportion by a hostile, secular press. Why does a religion that places such a premium on contrition have such trouble admitting its own sins? When your best defense is that the percentage of priests who are child abusers is about the same as for the population as a whole, you don't need a new pope you need Dr. Phil.
The Catholic Church needs transparency. They don't have to change their policy on married priests (God forbid) but what would it hurt to have a public conversation? No one is expecting a synod of bishops to debate the virginity of Mary but why would it be a problem to have one regarding women priests? At the end of the day at least people would understand the Church's objections. When your answer to every controversy is "Because we say so" you drive Catholics away in droves. This isn't the twelfth century. The good old days days of Tomas de Torcuemada and his creative methods of persuasion are over. The time of rewarding dissent with a trip to the Protestant barbecue pit are done. The Church needs more than threats and fear. They need to respond to a congregation that's educated, logical and less impressed by Roman collars than in generations past.
Francis is a Jesuit and the Jebs are educators with a deep respect for inquiring minds. Perhaps this Pope will treat the Catholics of the 21st century with the intellectual respect they deserve. Hey, it could happen.
He's a white male over 75. He was elected by 117 Cardinals who were appointed by either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. His views on social issues are well documented. He is conservative enough to run for Congress in any one of six East Texas districts. So, because the election took place around Passover, I am reminded of that famous Seder question "Why is this night different from all others"? Answer; it's not. Aside from the speed with which the Cardinals made a decision there's not much new here. (I am reliably informed that the decision was made urgently what with more than 100 old men forced to share a bathroom.) And after all, Cardinal Bergoglio was runner-up to Benedict XVI in 2005 (It seems that Cardinal Bergoglio was leading, until the tricky talent competition when he dropped his crosier.)
Seriously, Francis I is as likely to bring the Church into this century as Rick Santorum is to marry his mailman. It's mystifying that the election of every pope (I've seen six so far) is followed by a wave of unwarranted expectation for change. Commentators and journalists busy themselves for hours reading the tea leaves for clues as to what steps the new Pontiff might take to improve Catholicism. "He took the bus to work and lived in a modest apartment in Buenos Aires"; "he's a Jesuit, he's never worked in Rome, he has never had his mind warped by that viper's den that is the Roman Curia." Well, pardon my Latin but BFD!
The greatest irony in Catholicism was the sight of nuns weeping openly in Vatican Square when the new Vicar of Christ was announced. I can only guess they're crying over their continued pitiful treatment at the hands of the geezers in the red beanies; a plight that's likely to change around the same time that openly gay priests will be allowed to marry...each other.
Watching the Church deal with its shrinking flock and legal nightmares is like watching the Republicans attempting to fix their issues. The only difference between them is membership. The Church has 1.2 billion. The RNC has 34. (The same number that regularly attend Mass in France.) Before you can fix a problem, you have to admit you have one. The bishops and cardinals in Rome have convinced themselves that issues like child molestation are isolated incidents blown out of proportion by a hostile, secular press. Why does a religion that places such a premium on contrition have such trouble admitting its own sins? When your best defense is that the percentage of priests who are child abusers is about the same as for the population as a whole, you don't need a new pope you need Dr. Phil.
The Catholic Church needs transparency. They don't have to change their policy on married priests (God forbid) but what would it hurt to have a public conversation? No one is expecting a synod of bishops to debate the virginity of Mary but why would it be a problem to have one regarding women priests? At the end of the day at least people would understand the Church's objections. When your answer to every controversy is "Because we say so" you drive Catholics away in droves. This isn't the twelfth century. The good old days days of Tomas de Torcuemada and his creative methods of persuasion are over. The time of rewarding dissent with a trip to the Protestant barbecue pit are done. The Church needs more than threats and fear. They need to respond to a congregation that's educated, logical and less impressed by Roman collars than in generations past.
Francis is a Jesuit and the Jebs are educators with a deep respect for inquiring minds. Perhaps this Pope will treat the Catholics of the 21st century with the intellectual respect they deserve. Hey, it could happen.
Friday, April 05, 2013
...or are states controlled by Republicans trying to look like North Korea only with better haircuts?
Really, I get the "low taxes, small government" argument. I do. Your Department of Defense wastes 80 billion in cost overruns every year. Both parties spend too much. Congress and the federal government are merely training grounds for lobbyists and corporate spin doctors. The will of the people is thwarted every day by professional politicians more focused on re-election than why they were elected. (See: "lack of action on gun registration.") The Republican Party has a valuable role in curbing the profligate nature of Democrats who often believe that the federal purse is the answer to everything.
However, rather than govern or legislate, Republicans have continued to propose and pass state laws designed exclusively to pander to the dumbest, most reactionary of their constituents. Note: Please , if you can point to one,just one, Democratically controlled statehouse guilty of passing goofy laws like these I'll gladly offer equal time and equal ink. A few of these laws are noted below:
1) The Old Dominion of Virginia is facing a gubernatorial race in November. The leading candidate for the GOP is State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Kenny is a Roman Catholic, tea party zealot who has spent his four year term trying to: 1) prohibit abortions in the state, 2) repeal National Healthcare, 3) block immigration reform, 4) encourage discrimination against gays, 5) discredit climate science. That's one busy asshat!
Cuccinelli has recently filed a petition to uphold Virginia's anti-sodomy law. Laws like this have been deemed unconstitutional for ten years. In 2003 the Court told Texas they had no right deciding who puts what where as long as the players were consenting adults. Apparently Cuch isn't buying what the Supremes are selling. Playing to his Christian friends in Roanoke "Missionary Ken" is determined to be the anti-blowjob candidate. I'm sure his anti-LGTB stance played no part in his position.
2) The great state of North Carolina, not to be outdone, has decided that "the Constitution be damned". Ten state legislators have proposed a law which (are you ready?) would allow North Carolina to establish a state religion. Unfazed by details like the First Amendment, these glue-sniffers think that the federal government has no power over them. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we discuss this very issue from 1861 to 1865? I know I read that somewhere. So, even if this passes the legislature in N. Carolina, it's DOA in DC. The only reason for even proposing this is to give the finger to the federal government and look tough to the corn-cobbers in Durham. BTW any guesses as to the religion of choice? Islam? Buddhism?
Again, if you know of a comparable Democratically sponsored bill, tell me.
And then there's South Carolina, ever in a world all its own The Palmetto State is listed here, not because of any legislative turdblossoms but because GOP voters have decided they just can't get enough of that Appalachian Asshat, Mark Sanford. Yes folks, SC's disgraced former governor barely deplaned from Argentina with his hot new South American fiancee (aka the bimbo in Buenos Aires) before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Congress. Naturally, the good people of the First District, never ones to hold a grudge, said "Sure, why not?" Remember, Sanford only left the governor's mansion in 2011, eighteen months after he was outed as a cad. He will return to Congress as the current recipient of the David Vetter Rehabilitated Swordsman Award given to legislators who, having been caught with their pants down, have survived and prospered. God may forgive sins but the GOP is aces when it comes to forgiving sinners. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord and pass the condoms.
These legislative misdemeanors are only the most recent and egregious missteps by the Republicans and their teabagger minions. Not listed here are the states lining up to suppress voter turnout by demanding photo ID at the polls. (Ten states and counting.) Also unlisted are the states rushing to pass any crazy gun law that looks like an F You to Washington's efforts to curb gun violence. Add in North Dakota and its draconian new abortion law and you get a vivid picture of the tone of governance rampant in states run by teabaggers.
True, Maryland has just eliminated the death penalty, extended social benefits to illegals and severely restricted the sale and possession of firearms but these "liberal" laws do no harm and in fact attempt to do good. (Texas, by the way, has offered to execute Maryland's capital criminals if "Maryland is too woosie to do it themselves") There is no meanness afoot in Maryland as there is across the Potomac. No one in Maryland is trying to force their brand of religion or morals on its citizens. The answer to Newtown, CT and Aurora, CO may not be harsher gun laws but it certainly isn't more guns.
So while the legislatures of states like Virginia, North Dakota and North Carolina continue hissy-fits to rebel against federal authority, let's try to have a little patience. A reckoning is coming. Our Latin brothers are on the rise and on the march. Before too long the legislatures of Georgia and Texas; of Kansas and Arizona will thrill to the refrain "...all in favor of the bill on the floor, please signify by saying 'Si".
However, rather than govern or legislate, Republicans have continued to propose and pass state laws designed exclusively to pander to the dumbest, most reactionary of their constituents. Note: Please , if you can point to one,just one, Democratically controlled statehouse guilty of passing goofy laws like these I'll gladly offer equal time and equal ink. A few of these laws are noted below:
1) The Old Dominion of Virginia is facing a gubernatorial race in November. The leading candidate for the GOP is State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Kenny is a Roman Catholic, tea party zealot who has spent his four year term trying to: 1) prohibit abortions in the state, 2) repeal National Healthcare, 3) block immigration reform, 4) encourage discrimination against gays, 5) discredit climate science. That's one busy asshat!
Cuccinelli has recently filed a petition to uphold Virginia's anti-sodomy law. Laws like this have been deemed unconstitutional for ten years. In 2003 the Court told Texas they had no right deciding who puts what where as long as the players were consenting adults. Apparently Cuch isn't buying what the Supremes are selling. Playing to his Christian friends in Roanoke "Missionary Ken" is determined to be the anti-blowjob candidate. I'm sure his anti-LGTB stance played no part in his position.
2) The great state of North Carolina, not to be outdone, has decided that "the Constitution be damned". Ten state legislators have proposed a law which (are you ready?) would allow North Carolina to establish a state religion. Unfazed by details like the First Amendment, these glue-sniffers think that the federal government has no power over them. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we discuss this very issue from 1861 to 1865? I know I read that somewhere. So, even if this passes the legislature in N. Carolina, it's DOA in DC. The only reason for even proposing this is to give the finger to the federal government and look tough to the corn-cobbers in Durham. BTW any guesses as to the religion of choice? Islam? Buddhism?
Again, if you know of a comparable Democratically sponsored bill, tell me.
And then there's South Carolina, ever in a world all its own The Palmetto State is listed here, not because of any legislative turdblossoms but because GOP voters have decided they just can't get enough of that Appalachian Asshat, Mark Sanford. Yes folks, SC's disgraced former governor barely deplaned from Argentina with his hot new South American fiancee (aka the bimbo in Buenos Aires) before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Congress. Naturally, the good people of the First District, never ones to hold a grudge, said "Sure, why not?" Remember, Sanford only left the governor's mansion in 2011, eighteen months after he was outed as a cad. He will return to Congress as the current recipient of the David Vetter Rehabilitated Swordsman Award given to legislators who, having been caught with their pants down, have survived and prospered. God may forgive sins but the GOP is aces when it comes to forgiving sinners. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord and pass the condoms.
These legislative misdemeanors are only the most recent and egregious missteps by the Republicans and their teabagger minions. Not listed here are the states lining up to suppress voter turnout by demanding photo ID at the polls. (Ten states and counting.) Also unlisted are the states rushing to pass any crazy gun law that looks like an F You to Washington's efforts to curb gun violence. Add in North Dakota and its draconian new abortion law and you get a vivid picture of the tone of governance rampant in states run by teabaggers.
True, Maryland has just eliminated the death penalty, extended social benefits to illegals and severely restricted the sale and possession of firearms but these "liberal" laws do no harm and in fact attempt to do good. (Texas, by the way, has offered to execute Maryland's capital criminals if "Maryland is too woosie to do it themselves") There is no meanness afoot in Maryland as there is across the Potomac. No one in Maryland is trying to force their brand of religion or morals on its citizens. The answer to Newtown, CT and Aurora, CO may not be harsher gun laws but it certainly isn't more guns.
So while the legislatures of states like Virginia, North Dakota and North Carolina continue hissy-fits to rebel against federal authority, let's try to have a little patience. A reckoning is coming. Our Latin brothers are on the rise and on the march. Before too long the legislatures of Georgia and Texas; of Kansas and Arizona will thrill to the refrain "...all in favor of the bill on the floor, please signify by saying 'Si".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)