Separation of Church and State

A lot of polls are bandied about to show either support for separation of church and state - 59% according to the Interfaith Alliance/Zogby International - or support for prayer in schools - usually around the same percentage according to sources that are faith-based polls. How accurate these polls are depends a great deal on what is being asked.

For example, the poll supporting prayer in schools doesn't take into account other government entities. If prayer is okay in schools, then it should be legal for all governmental departments, i.e., transportation, county registries, city councils, police departments, etc. Even if this premise is found acceptable, it doesn't take into account the actual implementation of the prayers. What are the guidelines? Are the prayers to be led by the department heads, the teachers, the students, the employees - just who gets to say the prayer?

And, are all prayers included? Who gets to decide if the prayer is Christian or Jewish? Who determines if the prayer is specific to a particular faith - a prayer to the Virgin Mary by a Catholic or a prayer that speaks to the exclusion of other faiths or a prayer that affirms one denomination as the one true faith, beliefs held by many Protestant churches.

What do you do with people who do not believe in the mixture of church and state? Would an IRS employee be excused if his or her Southern Baptist department head led a prayer to Christ? This point also leads to a determination of bias - say this employee who does not participate in his boss' prayer can he expect this lack of participation to affect the evaluation of his job performance by his boss? Or, say a Jewish student is excused from a Christian prayer by his teacher, is it likely that the student might suspect that this exclusion will color the way his teacher views him and could affect the way the teacher grades him?

Many people who do not believe in the separation of church and state often point to the fact that at least 75% - and possibly more depending on the poll - believe in God. Of course, there is the large number of people who believe in God but also believe in the separation of church and state. But, let's assume a sizable majority - 60% - of the American people believe in God, but not the separation of church and state. Do they all have the same beliefs about God? There are over 2,000 different religious denominations in this country - the vast majority of which are Christian. If we are one nation under God, then why don't we all go to the same church.

Even within denominations there are subsets that greatly disagree with each other - Orthodox or Reformed Jews, Baptists and Southern Baptists, conservative Catholics and progressive Catholics, etc. So, when it comes to breaking the wall separating church and state, whose concept of God do we allow in our schools, and our governments?  Do we allow all - which would include Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? If not, then who gets to choose which religions may take part in our government?

I suspect that when people talk about there being no separation between church and state, they mean that there is no separation between their church and the state. Somehow they do not see that allowing only their beliefs in, means that all other citizens, regardless of their belief or lack thereof, do not have this same access. And if that isn't establishing a governmental religion, then what is?

So, the polls that support prayer in school don't answer the hard questions.  Why stop with schools - all governments federal, state, local should have prayers. Either all religions are included in this access or somebody will have to have the authority to choose whose prayers are included and whose are excluded. Would this authority be determined by majority - then Catholics would win. Or would it be put to a vote? Would the vote be national or statewide or local (then would it be city or county)? Answers to these questions would probably indicate whether one's support for separation or being against separation is a matter of one's faith - but whose faith wins?

Those Damned Poor People

Recent articles and letters to the editor to my hometown newspaper has convinced me that Muslims and gays can move over - the new demon is here.  The poor.  The newspaper did an article on people who have been unemployed for a long time, most through no fault of their own.  Businesses either laid them off, or closed altogether, leaving them to depend on the rest of us to help them through this crisis.

But, according to the letters to the editor, these poor people were disgustingly addicted to cigarettes - I mean how dare they smoke when they are receiving welfare and unemployment?  They were also overweight - everyone knows the poor need to be gaunt, ashen from lack of nourishment and skeletal from deprivation.  There was one letter writer who could not believe that the poor people profiled in the article had clean and neat homes.  Surely, he opined, the newspaper reporter helped clean the place up to shine a better light on these slovenly poor.

But, the worst, was that these poor people had cell phones.  A blatant luxury.  Cell phones are only for the rich and well to do.  Even though the phones were provided by social services for cases of emergency, ability to respond to employment opportunities and the need to stay in contact with friends and family, the letter writers were convinced that such extravagances in this day and age are not to be abided.  It's not like even elementary school children have cell phones these days, the very idea that the poor think they have a right to communicate is abhorrent.

One fellow suggested that the poor fill the ranks of the juror pools, since allowing his employees time off to serve on juries put a crimp in his business.  And everyone knows that serving on a jury is a sign of moral weakness, depravity and general lack of the ability to buy an HDTV. So, why not let these moral degenerates who have the nerve to be poor serve as fodder for the criminal justice system.

One thing all of the letter writers had in common was their profession of being true conservatives.  True conservatives understand that Christ never meant what He said about serving the poor, the sick, the prisoners, and the downtrodden.  Rather, He meant that the lives of those less fortunate should be made miserable.  For until they are wretched beyond belief, how can any decent soul enjoy his well deserved good life.

Conservatives know that Christ was all about the comfort of those who are well off, not some community outreach to those who don't work as hard as the rich.  For the rich work 100 times the rest of us.  They toil 86 hours a day, 435 days a week, 7,215 weeks a year - except for the times when they are out golfing because that's where the deals are done.  I can't wait to meet my Maker and say that I joined the proud ranks of the Tea Partiers, the true conservatives, the righteously religious by scorning the poor, shunning those less fortunate and yielding all things to those who are rich.  After all that was what the Sermon on the Mount was all about.  To quote Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king."

Those Rich Public Workers

In my town, we have a blatantly ultra-right weekly called the Rhino Times - they even admit their bias so they do have more integrity than Fox News. They annually publish the salaries of public officials, including school teachers, administrators, and government workers of all kinds.  Then they get callers who are recorded and published in succeeding issues who are outraged that someone like the person who runs the county government makes $170,000 a year.  Their outrage is focused on the fact that these people make their large salaries from taxpayers' dollars.  Usually the complaint is, "I work very hard and only make $30,000, so why are these people so highly paid."

All of this griping, typical of conservatives, takes its leave from reality and soars into the right wing dogmata-sphere where up is down and right is wrong.  Number one, the taxpayers control how much money public employees make.  They elect the people who set the salaries for the public employees.  The public employees don't set the salaries - the elected officials do.  So, their salaries are subject to the public's votes.

Number two, the reason these people make more money than the complaining taxpayer is that they have the education, experience and expertise that the ordinary citizen doesn't have.  A quality dry wall hanger is certainly worth respect, but not worth $200,000 to run a government that employs 2,000 people.  If he or she were qualified to manage such a large enterprise, then they wouldn't be hanging dry wall.

Number three, the salaries the public employees draw is small when compared to private workers who have similar education, experience and expertise.  CEOs of even small companies make well in excess of $200,000.  And guess who pays their salaries - well, it's not unicorns.  The average taxpayer is also paying for the goods and services that allow CEOs to take home millions.  Yet, the average taxpayer has no say whatsoever in the level of compensation these CEOs receive.  Company boards, often staffed by people handpicked by the CEOs, set the levels of their compensation.  The average Joe doesn't get to vote on that.

So, who is ripping off the general public?  Is it the Superintendent of Schools who makes $184,000 - who can be fired by the duly elected city or county commission which is staffed by people directly elected by we the people? Or is it the head of GE, whose friends make up his board - and who return the favor by appointing him to their company's board so he can vote them extremely large salaries and perks - where multi-million dollar salaries are the norm no matter what the company's performance is?

Once again, the enemy is obvious as far as our economy is concerned - it's the school teachers who only want a good salary and good benefits.  It is definitely not the CEO who gets an obscene salary and benefits that would embarrass a Pharaoh.  No, the CEO is just embodying the beauty of capitalism as espoused by P. T. Barnum, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."  With one corollary, "And it's even easier if they watch Fox News where they believe that enabling the rich to get richer is in the average person's best interest, because the rich, unlike school teachers, give so much back."

Sarah Palin's Rolling Thunder Debut

I saw where Palin's "Please Keep Looking At Me" tour is going to start at the Rolling Thunder DC event. Nice of you guys to take a back seat to the Mama Grizzly.

Of course, if Obama had even dared to make a statement in support of vets, conservatives would have torn him a new one for using Nam vets for political purposes. But the former governor - actually given the length of her term it should be former gov - can exploit vets as she continues her "will she, won't she" presidential campaign or non-campaign, which should focus all of the press' attention on the issues the vets are all about. Or her.

Where is the outrage? Even if Romney or Gingrich had pulled a stunt like this the press would have been all over them for their callous attempt to use vets to further their political ambitions. But Palin is going to join the event - at the behest of Alaskan vets I must acknowledge - because her presence will certainly cause everyone to wonder why we haven't pressed our now allies in Hanoi about the MIAs. Or whether she will actually run - both being serious issues of concern to all vets.

Of course, her expert marksmanship - she only needed 5 shots to bring down a caribou who never even flinched as each bullet whistled by its head (either a very courageous ruminant or a hoofed mammal with a profound substance abuse problem) - and her ability to bash a fish's brains out could endear her to former special forces members. Because they all know what it's like to have their fathers lock and load their weapons for them while they plunk away at their targets with a 20% accuracy. And what marine cannot relate to her pain when the lamestream media actually reprints what she says verbatim because marines are all about victimhood.

My brother-in-law, who is not in the best of health thanks to his service in Nam, stretched himself very thin physically attending a portion of this rally on behalf of his "brothers." To see Palin try to grab the glory that is due him and all of the other men and women who put everything they had on the line in service to this country makes me furious. I never liked Palin before. But now I find her beyond despicable.

Seriously Random Thoughts

After reading a column condemning gays and gay marriage because the Bible clearly states God's opposition to them and their lifestyles, I remembered when I was young in the 1960s and the Bible believers of that era pointed out that the Holy Book clearly indicated that White men were superior to Black men and to all women. The Bible was very clear on this they would tell me. They never explained how the Bible, which had no White men in it (well, there were some Mediterraneans, but most were Semitic and nobody was Anglo-European Caucasian), could so readily come to this conclusion.

Of course their gay-hating successors also have not explained how Jesus, who never said anything about homosexuality, was quite clear about God's frowning on the accumulation of wealth, especially at the expense of the poor, the elderly and the physically infirm. Yet, these same Bible-believing conservatives act as if Christ had opposed the capital gains tax in the Sermon on the Mount, and had castigated anyone who dared help the poor if they didn't verify the indigent's absolute physical inability to get a job first.

Actually, these conservatives don't really look to Jesus for support of their positions. They are more Ten Commandments Christians - eye for an eye, etc. Although only 3 of the Commandments - which supposedly are the basis of our Constitution and laws - actually relate to actual laws (and these 3: don't kill, don't steal and don't lie were common to almost all early civilizations even ones that pre-dated the Israelites).

For me, the culmination of all of these distortions of the Scripture and the selective usage of a small number of verses to justify their hypocrisy and bigotry were what turned me off to organized religion. I have studied many different religious beliefs and it appears to me that the heart of all of them includes the following:

Be good to your fellow man

Help the unfortunate

Don't do things that will hurt your mental, physical and spiritual growth

The things that make the religions different are how they implement these core values, who gets to decide the rules for the implementation of these values and the ultimate decision of who actually receives the compassion, assistance and support that are implicit in these values.

That is why I can never believe that we are one nation under God. We have too many differing versions of just who God is. I know the Southern Baptist God is not at all like the Amish God. The liberal Catholic God is vastly different from the conservative Catholic God. And the fact that there are several thousand different religious denominations in this country fully demonstrates that there is no one God we all consider ourselves under.

This also struck me as I read about Sarah Palin's latest scheme to ride around the country and learn about what built this nation and get fired up about it. She wants to see firsthand our "diverse cultures" in this "one nation under God," as if this oxymoronic statement neatly encapsulates all of the "real Americans" into her vision for this country. Like Newt's protestations against the transformation of this country into "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American," you have to wonder if conservatives are really this stupid or, like the AT&T commercial, they want you to understand that it is easier if you just don't think about what they are saying. Simply accept the rightness of their position or you will be labeled a bleeding heart, community organizing, socialistic, elitist, liberal who wants to destroy this country by not turning it over to the ultra rich and the corporate juggernauts. For these are truly God's chosen people - and preferred money changers.

Why Aren't The Tea Parties Upset About Republicans Gutting the CFPB

I am curious as to why the Tea Party members aren't upset about Republicans' efforts to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Bureau is a watchdog to ensure that banks and investment firms don't repeat the mistakes/unethical/criminal conduct they made in the recent financial meltdown. 

The regulations will ensure that banks have sufficient assets to weather bad loans, less incentive to make these toxic loans and bundle them into even worse investments for others. The regulations will also prevent Goldman Sachs and others from lying to their customers about the viability of their investments while betting against the investments they advised them to make and thereby making a fortune off their customers' losses.

Republicans in the House passed legislation that would enable any regulations to be easily repealed, and to replace a director of the bureau with a 5-member commission to ensure that each regulation is diluted by committee action. They say that they passed this stuff to ensure that they have a watchdog watching the watchdog, but it is clear what they want to do is let the banks continue their predatory practices that brought the global financial market to its knees.

They are being aided by almost $19 million in contributions from the banks and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has the distinction of having very few actual corporate members because of its incredibly far right wing politics).

Given the Tea Partiers hatred for financial chicanery, why aren't they demanding that the Repubs support the CFPB and provide average Americans with protection from the greed of these institutions? Some blame the poor, because clearly the poor have such great leverage that they were able to force banks to make these upside down loans. Who knew that banks would quail before the mighty poor and make loans they knew were bound to fail. It's not like they have the power to deny a loan to someone not qualified. 

You'd think that for the 6 years when Repubs had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency, that they would have put in place regulations to allow banks to fight back against the domination of our financial sector by the poor. I guess they were too distracted by eliminating our Constitutional rights to fight terrorism. Or perhaps they were distracted by the huge campaign contributions the financial institutions made to allow them to not only make these toxic loans, but also to package them for sale to others who then sold them to others, etc. until the bubble burst and we taxpayers had to bail out their sorry asses.

Wasn't that why the Tea Parties were formed to fight against the things that caused this huge bailout? Maybe they are being distracted by gay marriage, since one Tea Party linked this issue to our economic woes. So, now it's the gays who are the problem - and probably public school teachers. But never the banks. So that's why they don't need to be regulated. I can only guess because the silence from the Tea Parties on this issue is deafening.

Do Not Piss Off An Ant

Yesterday, as I was preparing to move some Earthboxes (fantastic little portable garden beds) next to our house, I paused to rip out some weeds growing up through our driveway. After one huge clump, I noticed a horde of ants erupting from the now cleared crack and I was pointing this out to my wife, when I felt a series of sharp stings. Pulling up my pant leg, I saw a number of the little critters on my legs, and my shoes were also covered with ants.

Running to the back of my house, I disrobed as quickly as possible and raced to the shower. As I scrubbed away the dozens and dozens of ants on my legs, arms and even my naughty bits, I could feel each and every vengeful bite these little scutters exacted on my flesh. Even after I washed them off me and got out to towel off, one last ant clung to my arm and instead of fleeing for his life, he bit down giving his all for revenge against the monstrous being who wrecked his nest.

My wife poured vinegar over the sidewalk crack and we watched in amazement as the ants fled, but with a purpose. Many carried items that were obviously going to be useful in their new nest, while others formed lines to create an orderly evacuation from what was their version of Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami disasters.

Today, when I took my shower and noted the little red marks all over me, I was struck with admiration for these creatures. They suffered a humongous - almost Biblical - catastrophe, yet they reacted with purpose and determination. Some gave their lives to protect the nest and attack the source of their tragedy - moi - while the rest proceeded to leave carrying with them the essentials for their new home. Perhaps some were frozen in horror like many of us in times of dire circumstances, but most of these tiny creatures did what needed to be done.

Indeed, we have more in common with the creatures we have dominion over - and that dominion is as shaky as a host of ant bites - then we have differences. So, as I scratch the remnants of the tiny scars of their righteous vengeance, I say, "Well done brave critters and I am sorry I rained destruction on you. I will be more careful from here on."

Banking Scandal Gets Personal

For those of you who defend the "free market system" and the glories of capitalism, here's an example of how failed that is from my backyard.  In our small county here in NC - we have 200,000 residents in the city and county combined - our Register of Deeds has determined that 4,500 mortgages have been falsified by Bank of America, Wells Fargo and about 20 other major banks. These mortgages have been signed off on by fictitious people - people who have never worked for the bank of record. There are some so-called vice presidents who have signed off on documents with 25 different and distinct signatures. Not only that, but these same people evidently held vp positions at 3 or more banks at the same time.

Our Register of Deeds has forwarded his findings - and suspects up to 3,000 more fraudulent mortgages will be found - to federal, state and local governments, as well as to the task force comprised of AGs from all 50 states. The banks claim that the fraud was perpetrated by the companies they subcontracted the mortgages to, so they aren't responsible. As if they aren't responsible for vetting the people who process their mortgages.

This whole mortgage mess is what happens when capitalism is allowed to exist without regulations or with no fear of any consequences when they ignore existing regulations. They blame the poor for somehow forcing them to offer mortgages to people who cannot afford them. I have purchased 2 houses in my time and both times the banks required extensive proof of my income - not just pay checks but bank statements, tax returns, credit checks, etc. These seem like normal, accepted practices.  But somehow poor people managed to outfox these banks by providing no proof of income and the bank officials signed off on the loans. Sometimes, the poor were so wily that they managed to trick the bank officials into creating a mortgage application with fictitious salaries without ever meeting with the bank official prior to the loan's being approved. If we could only harness the poor's mighty powers for good.

Then, the banks took all of these toxic loans and sold them to investment firms who packaged them into toxic bundles. They were aided and abetted by rating companies like Standard & Poors who gave these sham mortgage packages top level ratings. These toxic investments were then sold and re-sold until the bottom fell out.  And the banks paid dearly - they got taxpayer money to keep them from failing.  But not to keep them from paying bonuses to the executives who were responsible for this mess. Some of these investment companies actually bet on the failure of these toxic bundles, knowing full well that the mortgages would not hold water. So, they colluded with the banks to profit on other people's misery. Now, Republicans are battling to keep these banks and investment firms from suffering from regulations that will require them to conduct their business in an honest and ethical manner because doing what is right and legal will cut into their profits. You can't fetter capitalism with burdensome rules that interfere with creative ways to rip off average Americans.

All you Ayn Rand supporters must be ecstatic to see her enlightened self interest being practiced so diligently by these captains of finance. However, you might have lost a convert. A local county commissioner here in my home town found out from our Register of Deeds that a property he had paid off 7 years ago was in foreclosure because of a loan he hadn't paid off.  The fact is he never took out said loan, and the fact is that the loan was signed by a vp like the one referenced above with the multiple vp positions for several banks and the multiple signatures. So this tea party stalwart, Republican conservative, working man now wants the heads of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, etc. on poles to be displayed in his front yard.

I guess that's where capitalism unfettered goes south, when it turns on one of its own. Here's a great idea - based on the banks' performance, why don't we privatize utilities so that they can be capitalistic profit machines. There couldn't be any harm in that, could there?

Lawdy Lawdy Sharia Law Is Coming

Run for your lives, the Muslims are going to impose Sharia law on all of us.  Though they only make up about 2% of our population, and there are as many interpretations of Sharia law as there are Imams, somehow this small gritty, but disorganized group is going to overthrow our government and eliminate the Constitution and put in place such things as praying daily to God. Since they are such a small portion of our populations, they are going to have to rely on Muslim versions of Gomer Pyle to jump out shouting, "Citizens Sharia law, Citizens Sharia law."For the Republicans it's a great issue. There is no likelihood of this ever transpiring, but they can sure scare their base - and independents they hope - into believing it's a real threat.  And, of course, only they are mighty enough to fend off this nefarious scheme.

Republicans always need a bogeyman to enable them to keep the electorate from focusing on their policies and programs.  Because when people do check out what the Repubs are proposing, they get alarmed - i.e., Paul Ryan was booed by his own constituents after they read his budget plans for the country. So, the Repubs need Blacks and Commies (in the 50s), feminists and hippies in the 60s, socialists in the 70s through the 80s, gays in the 90s, and terrorists in our current age.  All of these groups are characterized as less than human, but superhuman in their effects on average Americans.

They shout that if Democrats get their way, why Blacks will marry White women. Everyone will be smoking dope and wanting peace or unisex bathrooms. Everyone will have healthcare and gay marriages will split up heterosexual marriages worse than adultery.  And, we might have to look at why we unquestioningly support a nation that spies on us, steals our intelligence secrets, infiltrates our government agencies and kills women and babies in the name of self defense.

Of course, our support for Israel is mainly due to the Christian right, who needs Israel to survive until Jesus comes back and we can kill all of them Jews - hot damn!

About a Response

Triker responded to one of my recent blogs about NC being saner than Tennessee.  His comment is below:

As another Tennessean, I have to agree with your assessment of Tennessee lawmakers. However, I have to disagree with your "Bruce Willis" civilian vigilante example. 

In Georgia the law permits you to carry your weapon most places. However it doesn't allow you to have your gun at an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on premises. Also excluded are government buildings, political rallies,and polls. Also private property owners (malls, stores, etc) can post signs that forbid firearms. (The Mall of Georgia is an example of a gun-free Mall)...

My point is that there hasn't been a widespread increase in shootings in Georgia. Nor has there been a single report of a hand-gun being used in a violent crime by anyone with a carry permit.

I believe that is because of screening gun owners here at the point of sales with an even more intense screening for those who have carry permits. 

I know that we are speaking generalities here.

Enjoyed your observations...


Enjoyed your response Triker, but the Tennessee law I was referring to does allow weapons in bars and seeks to override the objections of businesses that want to ban guns from their establishments.  In addition, some states do not require any training or accept military service in lieu of training for a concealed carry permit.  I think my point is still valid.  No amount of screening can determine how a person will use his/her weapon in a time of crisis.  A bystander at the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford came within a hair of shooting the other bystander who had wrestled the gun away from the shooter. He didn't know who was innocent and almost shot one of the heroes of this incident.  


If concealed carry permits were the great blessing that you guys think they are then why are so many police against them.  These police cite the fact that armed civilians confuse an already deadly situation, forcing the cops to make decisions about which armed person is the criminal and which one isn't.  A person with a gun is a person with a gun.  No white or black hats available.


As to the judgment of a concealed carry permit holder, well a couple of years before this law was proposed, two concealed carry permit holders shot each other to death in an Appplebee's parking lot over a parking space.  The permit didn't make either man more responsible or less prone to rage.  It did allow them to kill each other.  Additionally, most states  do not keep statistics on crimes by permit holders, but given the number of domestic shootings (there have been one every week in Greensboro for the last month, where the husband ends the argument with the wife using the Glock manifesto), I would be willing to bet that a percentage of these tragedies were committed by permit holders.


All this being said, I have no argument against conceal carry permits within reason.  There are many legitimate reasons for someone to responsibly protect themselves.  However, to allow people to carry weapons into establishments where the likelihood of being attacked is less than the odds of being attacked by a crazed otter does not give me a sense of security.  Add to that the fact that this law allows these permit holders to go into establishments serving alcohol is asking for trouble.  After all, if I am carrying what's one beer - or two.  I am truly glad there have been no tragedies based on permit holders' actions in Georgia so far.  But that state seems to be saner than Tennessee, too.

Glad to Be in NC

As a former Tennessean - and glad to have that status given the kinds of laws now popular in that state - I do keep up with goings on there, especially in the legislature.  This year, Tennessee legislators have outdone themselves.  They have tried to outlaw Muslims, and when they found that this law was - well, unconstitutional - they changed it to allow the governor or AG to designate any organization, person or other entity a terrorist supporter.  There is no provision for providing any proof that would merit this designation.  In fact, it would be done secretly with no public oversight.  The law would enable the gov or AG to freeze and seize assets, surveille people and even arrest them, all without providing evidence or a recourse for the people to appeal the process.  Since the sponsors of the bill let a hate group, with a decided anti-Muslim bias, draft the legislation, you know who they want designated.

There is also a  bill to allow science teachers to teach Creationism - it's artfully worded, but the upshot is to allow alternative theories, whether scientific or not, to be a part of science education.  Because you want a Creationist-trained physician doing your triple bypass don't you.  Another bill would restrict sex education classes to only discussions about heterosexual sex - if teachers aren't allowed to say the word gay, then all gays will disappear, I guess.

What really boggles the mind is the spate of legislation that would allow anyone with a Conceal/Carry permit to take their weapon basically anyplace - schools, churches, parks, workplaces, restaurants and even bars.  Their argument is that when the evil ones come to these places to slaughter the innocents, the Concealed/Carry people will automatically turn into Bruce Willis, able to spin on the floor while deftly killing bad guys and never wounding or killing bystanders.  Because a permit and a few hours of training gives every one of these gun owners these magical powers.  They will never lose their cool or their uncanny ability to aim and fire accurately under conditions that might be termed stressful.

Recently, the head of one of Tennessee's college police departments spoke out against this law arguing that even trained policemen have a hard time being that accurate or coolheaded simply because life and death situations are extremely tense.  He also added that armed civilians present a huge dilemma for police because they are trained to take down armed civilians, especially when there are reports of an armed civilian killing people.  So, how are they to tell the armed good guys from the armed bad guys.  The reaction of some Tennesseans was to call into question the constitutional rights of a police officer to consider an armed civilian a threat.  I guess the cops are supposed to conduct an investigation to determine if the guy brandishing a weapon in TGIF is safe or not.  Try pulling a gun while a police officer is around and telling him he has no constitutional right to shoot you and let me know how that works out for you.  In NYC, a guy got shot 42 times for holding a cellphone.

Some Tennesseans argue that Conceal/Carry permit holders would never break the law by taking a drink while packing, because as everyone knows the greatest fun on a Saturday night is to go to a bar and drink club soda while vigilantly looking out for the ones who are drinking.  All of this nonsense is predicated on the notion of self defense, although even with high profile mass shootings, the odds of being attacked at Applebys is much less than 1%.  It's like erecting a wall around a city to keep out Raptors just in case someone is able to make Jurassic Park a reality.

All of this is not to say that people in NC are saner - although the fact that we elect Democrats more often might be proof of said sanity.  It's just that Tennessee tends to elect people who make Donald Trump look like a serious world leader.  This started happening after I moved, so I can only determine that I was the one who was responsible for electing people with IQs above room temperature and when I left - well, I ain't going back, so people of the Volunteer state are going to have to live with the oatmeal brains they elected.  I will stick to a place where basketball outranks every other social or political issue.  There's something comforting in that.

Swift Justice

In response to, primarily conservative, calls for swift justice, there is a guy here in NC released from death row after 16 years, where he twice was hours away from execution. I'll bet he is glad justice wasn't so swift.  Turns out the DA neglected to mention witnesses that placed the guy at another place at the time of the crime.  Plus, our state bureau of investigation had in place rules that allowed them to report preliminary findings to the DAs, but if subsequent testing proved negative, they routinely didn't pass this info along.  The guy who was convicted was put away because a witness - who it turns out is now probably the killer - received a plea bargain to testify against the him.  Blood evidence was introduced which sealed the deal, until it turned out that the tests were false and subsequent tests determined that it wasn't the dead woman's blood on his clothes. 

The upshot is that this guy spent 16 years of his life behind bars, came very close to being executed, all for something he didn't do.  In addition, 100s of cases that involved our state's crime lab are now being reviewed because of this quaint practice of only providing the prosecution with evidence that supports conviction, while suppressing any negative results on that evidence.

The question I ask is - based on the numerous cases of people being released from death row due to DNA testing or the uncovering of prosecutorial misconduct - how many innocent people, who are executed in the name of swift justice, are acceptable collateral losses.  The Supreme Court has issued a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to prosecutors, because Harry Connick, Sr. (yes he's Jr.'s father) convicted a man through gross prosecutorial misconduct. Even though there were multiple acts of negligence and even distortion (a pattern that had been in place for decades), Scalia, Thomas and the rest of the conservatives decided that those little goofs, even though they almost cost a man his life, were mere peccadilloes and that the man had no recourse to sue Mr. Connick.  Now prosecutors know that they face no punishment for misconduct, so how likely is it that they will pursue a conviction using unethical methods if they know that even if their misconduct is uncovered the only one who suffers are the innocent who are jailed.

Swift justice does not equate to real justice, unless the purpose is to increase executions with the understanding that it is acceptable that there will be some innocents who are killed in the process.  If you can live with that fact, then may justice be swift for you and yours.

Obama's Birth Certificate

I am almost sorry Obama released the long form of his birth certificate - although the short form he released in 2008 (which was the first time, Donald Trump notwithstanding) is just as legal.  I loved the Birthers and their fantasy that they weren't questioning Obama's legitimacy because he is Black - why I am sure that many of them would like to see Romney's certificate, after all he is a Mormon and they are furriners in the eyes of many religious fundies.  Of course, now Trump is saying that Obama was a poor student.  I guess Harvard's law school gives out magna cum laude diplomas to anyone who can afford the tuition.  But, Trump, a long-time Republican (if you don't count his being a registered Democrat 2001-2008) is currently at the top of the Republican candidate list based on his many lies.  And I thought he would make an admirable opponent for Obama.

His foreign policy statements alone would have made the campaign highly entertaining.  Evidently, all we have to do to lower the price of oil is to tell OPEC to lower the price of oil.  Those Arabs just need some stern and straightforward talk to put them in their place.  And that pesky debt ceiling need not be raised, we just need to cut a deal with our creditors - hey China, cut us some slack or we will stop buying your cheap goods and some guys from Brooklyn will come to your house and break things.  But I now doubt that he will be the nominee, so comedians will be crying at this loss of such great material.

Palin, who doesn't seem to be popular with much of anyone except those who think that an undrugged moose will stand still while being shot at 5 times, seems unlikely to run.  Michele Bachmann doesn't seem to have the support to push her to the top leaving us with no one to rewrite our history to suit her loony fantasies.

Newt - well, I don't see how he could in good conscience accept the nomination since he is so patriotic it forces him to commit adultery nor could we live with ourselves if we forced the nation's highest office on him.  What would wife number 3 think about us, and who would be wife number 4?  Besides, he is still trying to explain how Obama is going to implement an atheistic Islamic theocracy in this country - where we would have to bow down to the God that they don't believe in.

Huckabee confuses Kenya with Indonesia, the British for the Dutch and Mau Maus for Sukarno's people, so as president he would have invaded Liechtenstein instead of Afghanistan.  And he evidently believes that colonialism - where one country invades another, oppresses that country's people and siphons off all of their natural resources - is a good thing.  So, he obviously believes our Founding Fathers made a big mistake when they resorted to anti-colonialism back in the 1700s.

The only decent candidate - now that Haley Barbour has decided that there are too many Tea Party nutjobs to have to please to win the nomination - is Mitt Romney.  The guy who created universal healthcare for Massachusetts, which he now hates (although the folks in that state seem to like it a lot), hasn't been absolutely hypocritical.  And, he leans more to the moderate side, so he hasn't a chance.

So, who does that leave?  Paul Ryan.  He is a courageous man who put forth a budget that got him booed by his own supporters.  He is against raising the debt ceiling, although his budget calls for adding $2 billion to our debt in 2012 and up to $7 billion more by 2022.  Evidently, he has a lot in common with David Copperfield and can use magic to accomplish 2 contradictory things.  He wants to give vouchers to old people to buy insurance from private companies, because they love to give good rates to people who are most likely to have preexisting conditions.  And, he would only do that to people who are currently under 55, because he obviously hates 54 year olds.  This is a man who is proud of his hypocrisy and doesn't make wild promises about invading Libya and basically stealing their oil.  So, I nominate Paul.  Trump could be his VP so that the comedians would still have someone they can make fun of.  Ryan/Trump in 2012.  Or, even better, Glen Beck and Ann Coulter - you get the best of wild eyed lunacy, venomous lies and mean spirited policies - she wants us to invade countries and force them into Christianity (wasn't that one of the Beatitudes) while he believes helping the poor leads to communism.

I look forward to next year to see if my candidates prevail.

News of the Weird

According to the "News of the Weird" column by Chuck Shepherd, the IRS records show that residents of the NY Helmsley Hotel - famous because of "Bitch Queen" Leona Helmsley who once said, "only little people pay taxes" - whose average income in around $1.2 million pay less in taxes percentage-wise than do the janitors who clean their rooms.

This shouldn't be considered weird, as it has been noted in many news articles and economic research that most people whose "income" is $1 million or more don't actually receive a paycheck.  In other words, they don't really work for their "income."  They receive the lion's share from investments, which are treated as capital gains and are taxed at a 15% rate.  As Warren Buffet said, he pays less of a percentage of his income than his secretary does - and to the billionaire's credit, he thought this was unfair.

Most people who defend the right for the rich to not share the burden of taxation argue that they are the productive class.  It is these rich altruists who create the jobs so that we all may prosper.  However, they have had Bush's tax cuts for over a decade now, and the unemployment rate has gone up steadily every year the tax cut has been in effect (until recently due to the efforts of the - gasp - Obama administration).

Actually, small business owners are the ones who create the majority of new jobs in this country, and they rarely qualify as rich - if you use $1 million+ as the bar for being wealthy.  The rich tend to invest their money in financial investment packages - derivatives, hedge funds, etc. - which do not create jobs - except in investment brokerages.  Investment brokerages are the one area where incomes do exceed $1 million.  So, the rich create jobs and job stability for the rich.

 Another myth about the rich is that they work longer, harder and smarter than the rest of us so they deserve their wealth as a reward for all their toil.  Having worked in fundraising for the last 20 years, where studying the rich is mandatory, I can say that most rich people I have met or researched are part of what has been called the largest transfer of wealth ever.  In other words, most of the rich got that way by just being born.  Daddy, or more likely Grandpa, actually created the wealth - the current richies just inherited it.

In fact, I have had very few significant contributions from rich people's personal funds go to the nonprofits for whom I worked.  They have foundations - again most likely created by their father or grandfather's wealth.  So, they direct the foundation to make the gift - they get the thanks and the publicity without having to actually whip out their debit card.

And, just to get all moral on the subject, the Bible has literally hundreds of quotes that liken the creation of wealth to corruption, greed and a sure way not to get past the Pearly Gates.  In fact, even the Old Testament indicates that if a person is rich and they don't help the poor willingly then they are violating God's will.  Jesus of course was more detailed about the evils of wealth, but to hear the conservatives talk about Him, He said, "Blessed are they who cutteth the capital gains tax," or "Blessed are the poor, but be sure and verify that they are poor through the most direst of conditions and consequences and are not gaming the system and putting their grubby little hands into the rich person's pocket."

I don't hate the rich.  I do hate the attitude that people of wealth, privilege and power deserve even more of it at the expense of hard working average Americans.  Bill Maher once tried to explain the illogic of an average Joe supporting cuts in the estate tax - which only kicks in after the first million or so is exempted - it's called an estate tax because it taxes people who are wealthy enough to have estates - otherwise known as "not you." This to me sums up all of the support average workaday conservatives provide the rich - they use this support to actually siphon off more of your share of the economic pie, leaving you with less, while they get even richer.  It's like a pig contributing to the More Barbeque Party.  You ain't gettin' nothin' back except more economic pain, but somehow they have convinced you that it is your right and your duty to surrender your share of the economic equation to them.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that the liberal media are all owned by extremely rich corporations - who evidently are too stupid to recognize the socialistic bent of their own TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazines.  But you know they would never use the power of these media outlets to influence Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack that the fact that their share of the economic pie now is over one third, while the rest of us have lost 15% of this same pie.

Obama's Birth Certificate

In light of the renewed interest, engendered by The Donald Trump (who is great friends with "the blacks"), in Obama's birth certificate. I have uncovered some equally startling cover ups.

Sarah Palin loves Grizzly Moms because - are you ready for this - she has sex with bears.  Oh yes - have you ever seen her shoot a bear or club one's brains out.  Nope.  She loves her some Ursa Majors.

Newt Gingrich sells small Mexican children to sausage factories in Germany.  The next bratwurst you bite into should be saying, "Hola, Gringo."  He gets them wholesale from Herman Cain - you might want to check the "sausage" in your next Godfather's large meat lovers.

Paul Ryan's budget is harsh on seniors - placing Medicaid under the control of budget cutting Republican governors and reducing Medicare to two for one coupons at Blue Cross Blue Shield for $30,000 annual policy fees and $8 trillion deductibles.  But, do you know why?  He hates old people.  His grandmother used to pinch his cheeks and call him her "Little Tinky Winky."  Well, all of those old people who wander off from nursing homes and die of exposure - well just check Ryan's pockets for prunes - and look for trails of prune pits outside these facilities.

Michele Bachman keeps her looks by drinking the blood of virgins.  Fortunately, Minnesota has a huge supply - it is so cold that people only have sex in July.  If she lived in California, she would resemble the hag in Snow White.

And, The Donald himself is the biggest heroin dealer in New York.  Where do you think he got the money for his real estate empire - like he inherited it.  Really!!!

I have as much proof of all of these accusations as do the birthers - and I don't have the backing of an organization like Fox News.

Conservative Lies

George Bush's deficits were caused by the Democratic controlled Congress - wrong.  The Dems only controlled the House in 2006 - actually they didn't take office until 2007.  All the other years of W's reign of terror the Republicans controlled Congress - and, given W's appointments - the Supreme Court.  So, they controlled all 3 branches.

Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling - wrong.  If Paul Ryan's budget were to actually be enacted, it would raise the deficit by $6 trillion.  So, how could Republicans pass an increase in our debt, while opposing raising the debt ceiling to accommodate this debt increase?

Republicans swore to repeal and replace the Healthcare Act.  They have tried to repeal it, but where is their replacement proposal?  Of course, they won't need one if Ryan's budget gets enacted.  Seniors would get vouchers to replace Medicare and would have to apply to private insurance companies for coverage.  Of course, the fact that Medicare recipients are older than 65 and more than likely have one or more preexisting conditions, means that many companies won't even consider them.  And their costs out of pocket will go up because insurance companies have up to 20% administrative costs built into their policies (Medicare's is only 3%).  Ryan's budget also assumes that healthcare costs won't continue to rise as they have for the last 20 years, so these vouchers will always be enough.  And unicorns will deliver the seniors meds for them.

Bill Clinton forced banks to make risky loans to deadbeat poor people and that caused the housing bubble which burst on Bush's watch - wrong.  There was no such legislation or executive order "forcing" banks to make these kinds of loans.  (While the unicorns are delivering meds, let's just pretend that Slick Willie managed to create such an act.  Then why didn't the Republicans - who controlled Congress and the Presidency - do something about it while they were in power?)  Because such an act didn't exist - banks were encouraged to make loans to more people but only if they didn't violate their own fiscal responsibilities.

So, if poor people couldn't force the banks to make these loans, then why did the banks make such loans?  And why did Wall Street bundle these toxic loans and sell them to unsuspecting investors?  And why did many investment firms, like Goldman Sachs, create investments that would see large returns if these loans would fail?  But, according to conservatives, the financial sector had little if anything to do with this economic disaster.  It must have been public school teachers - the conservatives new villain du jour.

Yes, how dare public employees want good wages and benefits.  In fact, conservatives are against almost all American workers having good wages and benefits.  American workers should aspire to the below poverty wages and incredibly dangerous working conditions of China so American companies can compete.  How else are executives supposed to receive their millions in salaries and bonuses if the American worker is not willing to sacrifice to make this happen.  Of course, the rich are making their own sacrifices.  With the continuation of tax cuts, tax rates that are half of what they were under Reagan and capital gains rates the lowest ever, these poor rich people have so much more money to handle.  All those decisions about luxury cars, multiple houses, vacations in exotic places, can certainly take a lot of time and effort.  But better that the middle class should cease to exist than for the rich to pay more.  After all, the rich are the productive class - they create jobs - just check the unemployment rate to see how well they have succeeded using their tax breaks for the last decade.