Different is not Bad

I have been seeing and hearing a lot of 'Speak English or get the hell out of my country" sentiments lately and I would like to comment on that. 

I would like to remind everyone that this land we live on was not yours to begin with.  Remember that whole slaughter thing we started?  'Whites' were the original immigrants and not all them spoke English either.  (Polish, Czech, Russian, French, etc.)   While immigration reform is certainly a political issue and rightly so, it is also a human issue and that's what I'll be focusing on here.  "Go back to the shit hole country you came from" is something you are not just posting on a website, it is something you are saying about a PERSON.  PEOPLE speak Spanish and other languages.  PEOPLE take the jobs you won't take.  ASSUMING that just because someone speaks another language they are here illegally is just ignorant.  My advice to anyone who uses this kind of rhetoric or language is get it together and stop being such a bigot!  How can we ever unite as a country and deal with the real issues (income inequality, corporate/political corruption, the military/prison industrial complexes, etc.) if we are constantly being divided?  We are all PEOPLE and we have more power as a whole than we ever will apart. 

A Question for Mitt Romney

Recently on the Jay Leno Show, Mitt Romney said that people with pre existing conditions should not be able to get insurance coverage if they have not been consistently covered.  But that if they have had coverage consistently through other carriers, they should not be denied coverage.  Jay did a good job of following up on that statement, but no one asked this question.  If the Affordable Care Act allows a child to remain on their parent's insurance until the age of 26 and then required them to have coverage going forward through the individual mandate, wouldn't this solve the problem of a person not being insured until they were sick?  Wouldn't this mean that a person should conceivably be covered for their whole life?   Wouldn't that solve Mitt's 'hypothetical problem'?  But I guess that's a 'gotchya' question so it can't be asked to Mitt directly. 

Regulation is Not a Four Letter Word

I had a thought today.  If the tea partiers and republicans hate regulation so much, why are they in love with the constitution?  Isn't that kind of the ultimate regulation?  And then I realized that because the Constitution regulates the government, that's why they're okay with it.  Here is the lesson:  Some regulation is good and serves a purpose.  The Constitution protects citizens against illegal search and seizures, ensures us a right to counsel, and also a right to assemble peaceably and protest injustices.  In short, the Constitution protects its people and that's what the aim of business regulation is.  Not to destroy jobs, but to protect its people.    The EPA regulates industry so that we can have clean air and water.  The SEC regulates financial transactions and Wall Street so that they can't crash the economy again and continue to take advantage of the poor.  Here's an example of the differences:

When the Tea Party assembled to object to government action, with weapons, the government allowed them to do this because they have the right to protest, and unfortunately, to carry arms.  These are constitutionally protected rights.  When the Occupy Wall Street protesters object to continued corporate greed that has recently crashed our economy, the Wall Street workers menacingly toasted them with Champagne and watched while they were arrested for practicing their rights.  Yes, it was the police that carted away the protesters, but think about all of the corporate money in politics right now and why it might be in their interest to make this go away.  It really makes you think who is really controlling this country.  When you have 'lets cut spending' republicans protecting oil company subsidies and tax breaks for corporate jet owners, you have to ask yourself, "What's in it for them?"  Money, that's what. 

When you allow an entity to do whatever they want, that's exactly what they are going to do.  They are not going to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing or because they care about the 99%.  They only care about themselves.  The corporate standard operating procedure in this country for years has been to squeeze the benefits from the bottom so that they rise to the top like a tube of toothpaste.  This consistent action has resulted in taking advantage of people, violating rights, ripping people off, and literally making this world a worse place with no end in sight. 

The reason why they are doing this is because WE LET THEM!  WE vote in the people who are in the pocket of the 1% and are in some cases PART of the 1%.  The protesters have it right.  What is going on is WRONG and it needs to be changed.  Pointing out the hypocrisies is the first way to start this and it is starting to sink in. 

I'm not wrong.  If you take a minute to think about it on your own instead of listening to a talking point constructed by a lobbyist, you'll get it too. 

The Book of WTF?

This is an excerpt from a book I've been reading:

"Although the text was written in an exotic, long-dead language described as 'reformed Egyptian', Moroni had also given Joseph a set of 'interpreters': divinely endowed spectacles that would allow the person wearing them to comprehend the strange hieroglyphics.  By means of these magic glasses, Joseph began deciphering the document, dictating his translation to a neighbor named Martin Harris, who acted as his scribe.  After two months of painstaking work they completed the first 116 pages  of translation, at which point the two men took a break, Moroni retrieved the golden plates and magic spectacles."

No, this is not "Harry Potter and the Magic Spectacles", this is and excerpt from "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer from the part of the book that explains the story of how Joseph Smith translated 'The Book of Mormon' from the golden plates he claimed to find.  Mormonism would then become the most successful "American" religion.  This is why I stand behind the notion that most Americans are really, really stupid. I mean, come on.  The Angel's name is MORON with an I on the end!

If you haven't read this book, please do.  It is the story of how far a fundamentalist sect will go to control people for power in the name of God and the horrible problems that arise from it. 

Just a Few Questions From a Progressive

Okay...excuse my language...but what the fuck is going on in this country?  I cannot even wrap my head what has gone on in the past 6 months.  I think about it a lot and it's scary.  I hate to pull a Carl Paladino here, but I'm mad.  I'm really mad and I have some questions for the republicans. 

You say you want to save money.  You say you want us to live within our means.  If that is the case, then can you please explain to me how a person is supposed to live within their means when you keep asking them to pay out of pocket for things you get for free?  Can you please explain to me how cutting health care to women's clinics is not an attack on women and the poor in general?  Can you please explain to me how controlling my health care choices fits into your 'small government' argument?  Can you please explain to me how causing more unintended pregnancies, which a good percentage will eventually be put on welfare/medicaid, will save you money?   Can you please explain to me how much further you will be going and what is your endgame? 

I might be able to form more rational thoughts within the next 24 hours and make a nice progressive argument against this bullshit, but right now I'm just a little mentally worn out.   Rank hypocrisy will do that to you.

Santorum...There's a Reason This Guy's Name Means What it Does

I tuned in to Meet The Press today, as I do every Sunday because I'm a huge nerd.  But this week was especially exciting because I wanted to see Rick Santorum crash and burn.  He didn't disappoint.


There was so much wrong with the interview today but my main takeaways were:  

1.  Deficits matter now, but not in 2002 when they were trying to start the Iraq war.
2.  No abortion even in cases of rape and incest and doctors should be criminally charged.
3.  He'd get rid of the Affordable Care Act including the 'pre existing condition' protection. 
4.  He prefers home schooling over public schools because of 'weird socialization' public schools create, and he wants to overhaul public schools and make them more like a "one room school house experience".  

Not kidding, my jaw was on the floor through most of the interview.  Good thing no one takes this asshole seriously.  And if you haven't Googled his last name yet, please do it, it's hilarious. 

It's NOT okay

Here's a comment that is currently making the rounds on Facebook:

Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare (effective July 1st)! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional yet it's okay that every working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? Re-post if you… agree!!! Let's get Welfare back to the one's who NEED it, not those that just WANT it.

Since a lot of my friends are re posting this 'I'm okay with drug testing for welfare' thing, here's my blanket comment to you:

Sure, this SEEMS like a good idea.  Like Rick Scott says, we don't want people getting assistance and then laying around all day watching TV.  But not everyone working has to pass a drug test, trust me on that one. The government obtaining your bodily fluids and violating your privacy without probable cause is against the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment. It's also been reported that Rick Scott, governor of Florida has ties to a company that makes profits off of drug testing materials. 


Here's another concern, and this is just me stretching my own logic, but it makes sense to me.  If you take a drug test, it's possible that the government COULD extract your DNA.  I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory on the Glenn Beck level, but state governments have said before that they wanted to create a DNA database to assist the police in catching criminals.  With all that the new republican governors have done already this year, is the really such a stretch?  While I'm all for catching criminals in crimes where DNA could be a factor (murder, rape, etc.) obtaining a match with DNA provided during a welfare screening (or any other prerequisite test) could be thrown out due to its constitutionality (see previous sited amendments).  Then that person would most likely get off.


Back to the issue at hand.  The whole reason Rick Scott wants to do this is because of the Florida budget.  This is the same argument that I made in Wisconsin but I'm going to say it again, this is not about the budget.  If it was, the governor would not be suggesting that they pay all of this money to test the people who are asking for assistance.  I'm all for means testing, but all us progressives are saying is do it in a logical way that won't cost the state even MORE money (by paying for the testing).  


This is just another 'big government' solution brought forth by people who ran on 'little government' issues.  Just because hypocrisy coming from the right is constant, doesn't mean we should get used to it.