More threats to Obama on Topix

One of the saddest excuses for an open forum is a site called Topix. On Topix, people from small towns spread gossip about one another, but the hate and vitriolic rhetoric we came to know from the new breed of Conservative fringe voter is openly expressed on Topix as well. One of the more concerning trends is the open willingness to post threats to President Obama.

Here's just one more example.


I've reported it to Topix and it will probably be removed, but I doubt the FBI will be notified, so I am posting it here.

Such a sad time in America where people post such things, isn't it?

Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?

If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.

Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?

In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?

I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.

Morality can exist without religion or Faith.

Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.

If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.

If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?

I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The Problem With Leaders: OWS

The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?

At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.

Or would it?

You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.

OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.

Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.

After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?

After Labor Day

President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.

Let me tell you why, peons.

Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.

Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.

But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.

If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.

Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.

I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.

Because we value entertainment more

People are now asking why it was such a disaster was allowed to happen at the Indiana State Fair this past week end. The band, Sugarland, was about to go on stage. The crowd was awaiting their performance. While all this was going on, storm clouds were on their way, Indiana officials were seeking out advice regarding the weather, and people were admittedly concerned about the looming storm.

So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?

I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.

People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.

On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.

But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.

After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.

But people in our area have taken this one step further.

When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.

Sounds great, right?

Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.

So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.

Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.

The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress

One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.

But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.

I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.

I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.

I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.

I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.

It's us.

We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.

Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.

This is why "Common Sense" cannot work

I recently saw a comment on Facebook which suggested citizens take some of the workload off of government by doing the work themselves. The logic is as follows. If you can organize some of your fellow neighbors, then, for example, any pothole that needs to be filled can be handled by the people, costing the taxpayers less because local government won't have to do the repairs. That's the kind of common sense people conjure up in their tiny little heads.

Let's look at that in the REAL WORLD.

It may not cost you less in the long run. For what you pay in taxes, the cost translated from your contribution could be less than what it might cost if you chose to do it yourself. It may be a nickel and dime kind of difference, but it could be more.

But let's set that aside, because that kind of speculation is just that, speculation. I have no idea which option would cost less.

Let's look at the real world implications of regular citizens doing road repair.

First off, not many of us have any training in repairing potholes, so the job itself will likely be done half-assed and incorrectly, resulting in frequent additional repairs, and eventually, professional help.

Secondly, in order to do road repair, you've got to know how to manage traffic. You can't do the work on a busy road without stopping or redirecting traffic. Somebody might get hurt. It's not as easy as it looks.

Thirdly, if the repair is insufficient and someone either damages their car, has a wreck, or hurts another person as a result of the faulty work, who will be liable? If private citizens started doing this kind of work, it would be a legal nightmare.

Government exists because we are either too stupid or incompetent to do it ourselves. The next time you think you've got an easy solution to a problem, try to look at it from all angles. You don't have common sense. You frankly don't have any sense at all. You just have a simpleton's mind. Anarchy would ensue if you were in charge. Local government has all of the necessary components to achieve tasks like road repair. It may not be a perfect solution, but "common sense" solutions are even less viable than something controlled and organized, despite the bureaucracy.

The same kinds of people who think this crap up are the same people who think we can pay for health care by bartering with chickens as currency.

How do you feel about the Koch brothers?

If there's one incongruent thought floating around out there in conservative voter's minds, it's that while politicians are all the same, governed by private interests and corrupt money, when it's a Republican politician receiving the boost, it's okay. Yes, it's an extension of the IOKIYAR problem. In order to remain consistent, one would have to be opposed to corporate influence on the political process.

So here's my question and I'm asking it only to conservative voters.

What is your opinion of the Koch brothers?

Are you proud of them? Do they just belong to your "stick it to liberals" club? Are you okay with their money influencing your candidate just because you want your candidate to stick it to any and every liberal out there?

Or do you find their influence to be equally deplorable? How do you feel knowing that your candidate is not chosen by voters, but bought?

Let me know. I'd be curious to see just how angry you are at government corruption. After all, the Tea Party is nothing more than a Koch brothers' production. This isn't about unions. This isn't about Democrats. This is about your personal ethical standards by which you choose to live by. This is about what it is you are willing to support and what you refuse to put up with as a voter in America.

Stop Invoking "Common Sense"

When we face problems in the United States, we often rely on what it is we have learned over the years to combat similar problems. These lessons largely get lumped into the world of something people like to call "Common Sense." The thing is, common sense is not so common.

Let me elaborate.

As Americans, we sometimes pay the least qualified to do the most important jobs. We set up rules and regulations that make sense to us, personally, and unleash them on the general public. As Americans in 2011, we have to recognize one thing. We're stupid. We're selfish. We're whiny. We're impatient. If you cannot admit those things about Americans, then you are living under a rock.

In light of those idiosyncrasies, we have to admit that coming up with a common sense solution is like asking a dog to perform neurosurgery. It just isn't going to happen. A common sense solution is one that we all generally understand, isn't it? Obviously, this isn't the case in America anymore. Just because it makes perfect sense to you does not mean it will make sense to your neighbor. We will all disagree on the solution and because we disagree, it is not common. The commonness is simply not there. When we expect it to be, we are simply fooling ourselves.

Politicians like to fall back on the "Common Sense" buzzword in their stump speeches. We really need to stop invoking the "Common Sense" crap on that leve because it does not exist. We cannot employ that which does not exist.

In essence, what I'm saying is, we are our own worst enemy. Our nuclear waste is facing a fire risk and we are complacent about it. Our water company employees, gas company employees, cable tv employees, and electric company employees have no idea where the lines for their individual services run. On the flip side, tech support, whether online or over the phone is so robotic, useless, and utterly mundane and frustrating that those of us who need help cannot get it, but the algorithms in place are there because our fellow citizens are clueless.

We suffer at our own hand, folks. It is because we are stupid that these solutions that we find deplorable and stupid must exist. The next time you invoke "Common Sense," make sure you understand your opposition first. Then, it all might actually start to make sense. Until then, you're just one more selfish mouse in a maze after your own block of cheese, and that selfish behavior I cannot condone.

Until you know what common senes actually means, you'll just be spewing more useless information into the vacuum of space. A solution is just that, another alternative to a current problem. There is no right or wrong. There is only trial and error. Humans are prone to error, so don't expect us to be mistake-free. We cannot escape our own stupidity.

Quality craftsmanship...dead.
Pride in your work...dead.
Desire to achieve great things...dead.
Admiration for higher education...dead.
Honest employees...dead.

The customer is no longer right.

What did you expect to happen under these circumstances?

51 to 38 and how these polls don't matter

For those of you paying close attention to the Republican presidential candidate field, the polls regarding who will be the best possible option in 2012 might be grabbing your attention. The polls tend to imply that, although front-runners exist on the Right, when put up against President Obama, none of them have a snowball's chance in Hell. The competitive nature of these elections feeds the media monster and the ultimate goal is not to report news, but generate drama to boost ratings.

What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.

While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?

I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.

Vitter vs Weiner

This is modern US politics. When a Democrat does something underhanded, a witch hunt on the Right brings him down. When a Republican does something underhanded, there is no witch hunt and he is re-elected. Of course, I am speaking about the Anthony Weiner scandal. I am also comparing it to the David Vitter scandal.

This is the problem with our current political system. If you are a Conservative in this country, your voting strategy is as simple as not voting for any Democrat. Any Republican in the mind of a Conservative is better than a Democrat, even if the Republican is the biggest hypocrite and scumbag on the planet. A Conservative will still vote for anyone who has an R next to their name over anyone with a D.

That's just sad.

Let's just remind Conservatives that what Anthony Weiner has supposedly done was not illegal. It was wrong, but not illegal. David Vitter was a patron to prostitutes. That was and still is illegal. Republican leaders don't have a strong record of asking their criminals to resign, so why should someone resign over something that isn't against the law? Republican congressmen have escaped punishment over worse circumstances.

Regarding Vitter...
Where was the Right Wing witch hunt? I never saw it. The general public never saw your outrage. If it existed, show me. Show me the pages and pages of comments at the end of news articles clamoring for Vitter to resign. Some commenters want Anthony Weiner to go to jail of all things. Show me the Republican equivalent in the Vitter scandal.

Anthony Weiner will likely resign. David Vitter ran for office again and Louisiana voters sent him back to work in DC. Weiner will not see the same fortunate outcome. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics investigation and Democrats have attempted to distance themselves from Weiner. He will be urged to resign. Vitter should have been urged to resign. Pretty simple response to bad behavior, if you ask me. If it makes the party look bad, resign.

The same thing is going on right now with John Edwards, but what about John Ensign?

You can take this argument all the way to the outrage toward Obama over spending that George W. Bush never saw from the Right.

You need to understand that Republican politics is about the hatred of Liberalism. Liberal politics is about finding answers and solving problems, even if the policy may not work. Liberal policy is not about the hatred of conservative principles and ideas. It never will be. Liberals support tax cuts. Liberals support the free market. Liberals are not opposed to capitalism. Liberals are not happy Anthony Weiner did what he did, but if Vitter can get away with cheating on his wife with hookers, then Anthony Weiner can get away with some photos and correspondance with women. Small potatoes compared to prostitution. Liberals also tend to hold their elected officials accountable when they screw up. That behavior is less prominent on the Right.

This is all about Weiner being a Democrat. That's all it boils down to. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your disgust accordingly with consistency. You likely wanted Vitter to resign. You're not proud of John Edwards. You're not proud of Bill Clinton's blowjob scandal either. So in turn, you're most certainly not happy about Anthony Weiner's problems. If you're not a Democrat, your response to this story is firmly rooted not in fairness and right and wrong, but rather, the cookie cutter hatred for those on the Left.

Conservatives are proud to be assholes. Democrats frequently seek out compromise and give in. For Republicans, it isn't about right and wrong. It's about winning. If you're going to be the kind of voter who defends your own kind, and in doing so, you choose to be an antagonistic hypocrite about it, you deserve to be called an asshole. It's time to give Democratic politicians the same leeway Conservatives give their douchebags. It may not be right, but what do we have to lose? Our souls? US politics is already in the crapper. Who cares? It's time for Democrats to be assholes too. It's time to get our hands dirty. In politics, the moral high ground is frankly a road to nowhere.

Let me show you something else.

Links to Breitbart.com David Vitter Stories:
Despite scandals, Vitter the La. primary favorite
Sen. Vitter easily wins GOP nomination in La.
Vitter won't say whether 'serious sin' broke law
New Orleans Madam Names Sen. Vitter

What do all of these articles have in common? Aside from all of them apparently being AP News articles reposted on Breitbart.com, the other thing all of these articles have in common is a lack of outrage. Where are the comments? There are none. NONE. Not one. Not even one from a Democrat.

I'm not holding Breitbart's feet to the fire. I'm holding Republican voters accountable. They have plenty of time to write foul comments on these articles. Starting from the top, there are 134, 103, 97, 158, 120, 229, 143, and 208 comments, respectively, at the time of posting this photo which shows recent Anthony Weiner articles on Breitbart.com.

Libertarian teachers should be pissed off

Did I just hear that correctly?

Did Ron Paul just say we should not depend on our public education system? We should be home schooling?

Just when you think Ron Paul is nuts, he outdoes himself again. If you work in our public education system, from grade school all the way into state universities, you should be up in arms over those comments. This is where Conservatism's rubber hits the road, friends. If you want to be consistent in your beliefs, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. You are forced to vote against your own interests.

Libertarian teachers should be more than a little angry with this comment.

Ron Paul Quote Contradicts His Normal Self

Ron Paul is generally seen as the spokesperson for getting government out of our lives. He is seen as the person who wants bloated rules and regulations removed, allowing businesses to operate with more freedom.

But then you have this next quote, Paul referencing President Obama in respect to the War Powers Act.

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people,"

Ah, yes. You cannot count on people being good people. Well, sir, we cannot count on businesses being good businesses, nor can we count on business owners being good people. Profit is a strong motivator for doing unscrupulous things. This reasoning is the whole point behind imposing restrictions on certain things. We do not live in an ideal world and when people are allowed to do as they please, there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing and innocent people often suffer for those bad choices.

Legalize heroin and in an ideal world, no, people won't run out and do heroin. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. People love their vices. People love mental escapism. People do partake. People will go out and do heroin because there is no legal accountability. People do it even with legal consequences in place, after all.

So I agree that the War Powers Act should be followed. I don't like that Obama and Congress let this get dragged out as long as it has. If Congress supports our actions in Libya, then suppor should have been issued days, if not weeks ago. The 60 day mark was hit, so the way I see it, our actions in Libya must come to a close. Of course, Harry Reid has officially said in an interview that the War Powers Act is confusing and needs revision. Maybe this is one of those instances where a revision would clarify things, but the simple take on the current situation is that 60 days is 60 days, regardless.

In other words, I'm trying to be consistent here, unlike Ron Paul. There should not be exceptions placed on States' rights vs Federal power. Government is government, local or national. People are people, State or Federal. Crooked State officials are just as bad as Federal abuses of power.

Because people are not always good people, we have the Civil Rights Act. We have Medicare. We have Social Security. We have Welfare. We have taxes. We have laws. We are trying to avoid not only unfair practices, but anarchy itself.

My Atheism validated by recent storms

In the many discussions I've taken part in with believers from various flavors of Christianity, a very sad revelation comes to light when they are confronted with the notion that there is no God. They told me that if there is no God, then we are hurtling through space without any rhyme or reason. They then told me that they cannot live a life where that is the case. For them, there has to be something beyond our comprehension. There has to be a reason for all we have endured.

The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.

The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.

To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.

It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.

There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.

Legalization: Tell me why

One of the hottest debates out there in the US is whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Among the links and rants I find online in support of legalization, I find lunatics, belligerence, stereotypical stoners, and tangents which lack a cohesiveness that I can digest. Among those people, I find a pronounced disgust with authority, skepticism (if not demonization) of the medical community, and an overall lack of organized rationality.

So with this post, I am going to throw out some of the reasons I've been given for legalizing marijuana. Then, I'll follow each point with a brief criticism of those individual points.

I will not entertain rants from the likes of the same people I described above. You have to convince me why it is I should support legalization and my counterpoints must be addressed, not ignored by way of restating the original claim I am questioning.

I will not discuss marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I support its use for medicinal purposes if prescribed by your physician. While the method of administration is still in question, I cannot object to its use if no other pharmacological alternatives exist.


1. Marijuana as a substance vs Alcohol as a substance

The first, and often frequent point proponents use to advance their cause is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we allow everyone to drink. It is the anti-prohibition stance. For some, it is the lunacy which coincides with the anti-pharmaceutical industry stance.

My rebuttal to this point is not to question the effects of marijuana. As someone in the medical field, I know the effects and as a member of the scientific community and as a reasonable person, I must hold fast to the peer reviewed evidence, not the propaganda out there often produced as evidence by potheads. I will not entertain arguments related to those studies. Even potheads know smoking marijuana carries similar risks to smoking anything. Leave this one alone. There is another very important point to make regarding the effects of this substance that has nothing to do with the studies for or against marijuana use. We respectfully disagree with each other on that subject, so I cannot reasonably have that discussion.

What I have to do is take this discussion to the next level and I urge you to come along if you're still with me. If you're not, I'll wait for your mental preparedness to catch up.

Ready? Thank you to those of you who opt to continue reading with some sense of decency.

One of the main reasons people drink alcohol is for the effect it has on our bodies. The disinhibition and the "liquid courage" reputation alcohol has is one of the biggest influences for its use. The burn of a whiskey shot or a cherry soaked in Everclear is by no means a responsible method for ingesting alcohol. While it remains a legal form of use, it is by no means a responsible act, right?

In other words, lots of people drink to get sloshed. Getting drunk, last I checked, is a behavior we frown upon. Glorified intoxication is not at all entertaining, but sad. You should not drink to get drunk. By the same token, you should not use other substances to get high for the same reason you should not want to get drunk.

Among the stoner community, getting fucked up seems to be a priority. To me, this qualifies as a form of mental escapism which equates to getting drunk. You are using a substance to alter your mental and physical state not sanctioned by the supervision of a physician. These features make it a substance of abuse, not merely an enjoyable experience.

If it isn't, then tell me what your goal is when you take this substance? If the goal is no different than the college kid at the bar on the week end, then I cannot support legalization of mental escapism. Getting stoned is just as ridiculous a notion as getting piss drunk. The problem is, marijuana really doesn't have an in-between phase. A glass of wine at dinner does not have the same marijuana-equivalent. Stoned is stoned.

In addition, alcohol is a beverage. As a beverage, it has a certain appeal to our taste buds. Wine enthusiasts and many beer fans drink because they enjoy the taste of their favorite drink. The qualities of individual liquors are savored. Marijuana does not offer this culinary feature. When you eat brownies supplemented with THC, you aren't getting any additional flavor. You eat the laced brownie for the intoxicating effects. Because your aim is not the appreciation of flavor, but rather the effect the drug has on your body, I will refer you to the previous paragraphs and end there.

If, after this, your goal is still to get fucked up, make sure you read #3 below. Intoxication will come with regulations just like alcohol intoxication.


2. Marijuana as a cash crop

In the last few years, given the major budget issues present in both local government and within the Federal Government, supporters of legalization have argued that, if legalized, marijuana will generate tax revenue.

How exactly will it do this? In order to be taxed, it has to be sold just like cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana will have to be produced and distributed by companies in order for profits to be taxed. There are problems within that system, including corporate loopholes for avoiding paying taxes altogether, but as a cash crop, a corporate solution seems to be the only option, whether it be through a large or small business.

If it does not go through a company-based system, then we are talking about individual growers and consumption. So you're telling me that if you grow it in the basement, you're going to charge for it? You will report this revenue to the IRS? If everyone can grow the stuff, once legal, then why would anyone pay for it? My point is, a personal system of distribution will not generate revenue.

On top of this, potheads really never thought through the notion of weed becoming a cash crop. Let's assume we were able to institute a system where companies produce marijuana for mass consumption by the public. Let's assume it becomes a source of tax revenue as you claim it should. How much will you pay for your weed then compared to now? More? Less? You can't expect me to believe that your local corner dealer who is holding will charge more than some company with an added tax on top of the base price. Just like cigarettes, you'll be paying more. A tax will mean you will be paying more for your weed.

If your personal preference is to guard your wallet, I would highly recommend keeping the current system we have. Marijuana can't be a cash crop, so unless you want to pay more, you might rethink this point and live life accepting the drug as an illegal product. Continue with the status quo.


3. Decriminalization

This is the only argument that has any validity to it, but with decriminalization comes responsibility and other forms of regulation. Like the cash crop idea, it is apparent that potheads have not fully thought through this step either.

Do I think possession and intent to sell should be a crime punishable by imprisonment? Probably not. Our prisons should not be holding places for stoners.

What I cannot tolerate, however, is public intoxication. We punish people who are in public, drunk. We require that you do not drive under the influence. Marijuana most definitely impairs your reaction time and perception of reality. We cannot allow you to be in public under the influence. Marijuana use must strictly be limited to your home or in bars designed to distribute the substance. If you get in a car, high, you should still be held accountable under the law, subject to harsh punishment just as someone who drives drunk.

If you opt for decriminalization, the laws must still be modified to moderate public domain. You can do whatever you want in your own home or on your own property, but the second you step into the public domain, you will be held accountable. Your personal freedoms cannot extend into the public domain if your impairment poses a risk to the general public.

With that, I leave you to advance the conversation. Any comments which cling to old ideas and tired arguments I could read via a Google search will be deleted without any consideration.

Bobby Jindal's damn name

I just read an article over at nola.com about how Bobby Jindal released his long form birth certificate. In this article, Timothy Teepell, the governor's chief of staff, claimed that "Opponents have referred to Gov. Jindal as Piyush 'Amit' Jindal for years to insinuate that someone with a foreign-sounding name is less American than you or I."

Um...no. The spin machine that is the chief of staff wants Republican voters to think Democrats are attacking Jindal for having a foreign sounding name. This is not the case.

What critics of Jindal have always tried to highlight is how Bobby Jindal has turned his back on his culture in order to appease the white voters in the southern state of Louisiana. Without the name, white voters with racist tendencies would be less likely to vote for him simply for having a different name.

In essence, what opponents claim is that Republicans know Republican voters will see "Piyush Amrit Jindal" as a foreign-sounding name and by making the change, Jindal is manipulating an electorate with racist tendencies and a profound distaste for anything foreign. "Bobby" is just a friendly sounding name that is more palatable in Cajun country.

However, I've long argued that Republicans would vote for the Devil if his competition were a Democrat. All you need to do as a Conservative is have an (R) next to your name. Doesn't matter what you look like. A Democrat is subhuman compared to anything else to a Republican. "Anything but a Liberal" is the modern Conservative slogan.

But I mean, come on. Jindal has not only changed his name to put his heritage behind him, but he also changed his Faith along the way too. Opponents aren't after Jindal for sounding foreign. Opponents are simply pointing out the obvious pandering going on.

Good grief. Someone has his head up his ass and his name is Timothy Teepell.

The methodology here goes like this.

THIS


Becomes

THIS


OR

THIS

Flood/Drought solution

We have thousands of miles of pipe funneling a valuable resource into a system that feeds our hunger. These pipes don't funnel precious water. No. These pipes were designed for oil. We have similar pipes running natural gas across our cities. Why is it, then, that we cannot do the same with water?

There likely isn't any money in it. That's the reason for everything, right?

We are looking at disastrous flooding in the Midwest right now, but at the same time, Texas is facing a severe drought. Either way you cut it, entire crops are being lost. Our food supply suffers at the hand of Mother Nature.

Why can't we manipulate Mother Nature a little?

While it would involve a major undertaking across state lines, millions of dollars, and a lot of faith, ever since I've lived in the Midwest, I thought the idea that we could run pipes from that region to the South and Southwest to fill reservoirs and water crops was within our capabilities.

We have an excess of water in one part of the country and a shortage of this valuable resource in others. In the past, before many of our major cities were even in existence, we accomplished this feat using long canals. This concept is not a new one, so why we haven't implemented something on this grand of a scale baffles me. I realize there are some restrictions related to diverting water, but a state could easily allow an exception for when certain bodies of water rise above flood stage, for example. Sounds pretty simple.

The problem is money. For those who argue the government should not fund this, state or federal, I'm all for some private company installing these systems. Oil is a private venture and the same concepts can be applied. All it would take is some leadership. There is money to be made in a crop shortage, so I suspect the supply and demand system prevents us from advancing this far, but when water is admittedly becoming a valuable natural resource, there is certainly money to be made in this idea.

Do it. Try it. Help farmers. Help large cities. Help America.

There will be two kinds of Deathers

At a minimum, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the conspiracy theorists will come up with at least two rants that are rooted by the same mentality.

One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.

The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.

Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.

Death threats against Obama should be condemned

While I must sadly preface my remarks with condemnation of the death threats made against Wisconsin lawmakers in the wake of the union busting legislation snafoo, the fact remains that, even prior to his election, Barack Obama was a target of the hate present on the Right, hate rooted in racist ideals. The vitriol within the 2008 election campaigns fed this angst and from it, we were given this new breed of Conservative called the Birther. Beyond Birthers, white supremacist groups and your run of the mill corner drug store racists have gone unpunished. When comments regarding calling for the death of a US President are made, they should be taken seriously.

Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/

So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.

I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.

Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.







The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.

If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes

Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama

At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.

This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.

Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?

Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?

Is this the new way to steal an election?

This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.

Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.

Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.

Why secession no longer equates to leaving

Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."

I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.

These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.

So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.

This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.

In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.

So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.

Have we already lost?

The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.

When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...

We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.

We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.

I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?

Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.

You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.

Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.

So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?

This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?

When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.


When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.

"Imagine a world without Liberals."

That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.

So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.

A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.

Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?

If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...

Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.

When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.

When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.

Double Standard: UCLA Miss Piggy

When a student at UCLA posted a racist rant towards Asians on YouTube, all hell broke loose. The video itself is arguably protected by First Amendment rights, but defenders of her "ooooohhh ching chong ling long ting tong" impression tend to be white, middle aged, loudmouths.

Let me give you all a lesson on comeuppance in the white community.

When you run your mouth, shit happens. You get your ass beat. It's Jerry Springer. It's white trash Maury. That's just how it goes.

There is a double standard being allowed to flourish underneath defending this young woman's comments.

As white people tend to put it, she bit off more than she could chew. She stepped in it. Now she's getting what she deserves.

Lesson:
Don't run your mouth. You're going to piss people off, and usually rightly so. Comeuppance is a bitch.

The Political Correctness critics are all over this one. I'll clue you. If this had been made about a white person, the reverse racism card would have been played in a heartbeat. Sometimes the people with the thinnest skins have the loudest mouths. Just remember that the next time White Honkey gets offended.

Being PC saves yourself from getting your ass handed to you for being stupid. The Golden Rule should guide you in the right direction. This poor fool wasn't thinking and she put something stupid on YouTube. Now, it'll haunt her for years.

If I were her, I'd stop studying in the library. If I were Asian, I'd target the hell out of her all the time just to make her angry. She started the fight and now she's going to have to live with the repercussions. That's how it works. She'll get a dose of just how un-PC the world can be to someone who doesn't have a filter.

She'll be forever known as White Bimbo Racist Miss Piggy.

Conservative Tweets Late To The Party

With all of the hoopla going on in Wisconsin over union busting, my initial instinct was to observe what the dialogue offered in cyberspace. Twitter was a great place to check. When the protests peaked late last week, Twitter was alive with positive comments supporting everything. The tweets reflected public opinion in terms of percentage supporting vs opposing the actions by Gov. Walker.

Today, now that the Republicans in Wisconsin have made fiscal concerns less important than ideology, attacking unions and middle class America, the vibe on Twitter is noticeably different.

Conservatives dominate the trends. Go ahead. Look for #unions. Look at all the tweets. They may have arrived late to the discussion, but now that they are here, they are flooding the internet with hatred, misinformation, and talking points related to unions.

Even in news articles posted online, commenters were largely supportive leading up to last night. Today? The Conservatives are trolling the message boards like stink on shit. The term "Union Thug" didn't get thrown out there until today on a grand scale.

One has to wonder if this isn't an organized effort to flood Twitter with negative publicity. This happened with HCR. It happens with every political topic out there. The Conservative response comes in a wave on Twitter, usually waves of misinformation and just as much hatred as witnessed in public.

The opposition just seems to be far too orchestrated than a random series of opinions.

I find this to be a peculiar observation. If public polling favors the unions, it stands to reason that Twitter should reflect these opinions. The sudden shift in content disturbs me as an American who knows corporations run the Republican party. Abrupt changes in the dialogue like what I've just described should not go unnoticed. Of course, nobody in the media will catch onto this trend. That's why I'm posting it here. When you control the dialogue, you control public opinion. The overwhelming change in opinions on Twitter incorrectly portrays the sentiments of the American working class.

All is not as it seems.

Huckabee vs Obama/Muslim Myth

For most Republicans, the Colbert Report is not on their radar. They probably lump him in with Stewart and all that is the scary Liberal media. Unfortunately, Republicans do come on the show, so it would benefit them to hear what has to be said, whether through ridicule, truth, or both.

During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.

To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.

1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.

So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.

Maddow misses the mark

There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the more Liberal media outlets, namely MSNBC. While I admit the coverage and explanations are usually spot on and come from valid sources, the overall point has no relevance to the modern day Liberal. The often cynical news segment highlights the opposition and does not address our own goals or ambitions as Liberals.

In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.

I should probably explain this first.

Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.

That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.

But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.

In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.

So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.

We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.

Limbaugh Mocks Asians

In a recent broadcast by blowhard, Rush Limbaugh, he expressed commentary related to the recent visit to the White House by President Hu of China. In the midst of this commentary, Limbaugh began imitating Chinese-speak, akin to a religious televangelist speaking in tongues. The gibberish was nothing short of mockery and a California State Senator, Leland Yee, expressed himself in protest, asking advertisers to pull support and asking Limbaugh fans to boycott his show.

Shortly thereafter Yee received not only threatening faxes with noose/pick up truck imagery, but a voicemail which mocked him as an Asian-American.

Making fun of someone's culture by imitating the way they speak is both inappropriate and offensive.

To make my point, let me mock rednecks and see how well they take it.

You've no doubt heard the country music song mockery before.
My wife done left me, my truck don't work, my horse died, and my dog is the only friend I got left.

No? Not offended yet?

Okay.

What about mimicking the southern drawl?

I did dat dere done what for n ah seen mah paw n ah yell yee haw

If I did that down here, I'd have my ass in a sling.

It's called the Golden Rule. If you preach it, live by it.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7924592

YouTube: Limbaugh/Chinese
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=limbaugh+chinese&aq=f

Divided we stand...Wait. What?

Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches on the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise is not a possibility anymore. One side attempts to compromise to the middle and ends up losing, while at the same time, gets framed as uncompromising and so far Left in ideology, the other side has no idea where the middle even begins or ends because they are too far Right in ideology. In the end, nothing gets done and the American people suffer for legislation that has been made ineffectual through backdoor deals and retroactive policies specifically designed to cripple such legislation. Let's face it. We are a mess.

After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.

After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.

Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.

What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.

My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.

I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.

Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.