The New Look of the Working Class

                                                   
Over and over again we hear both in the news and on the streets, companies going way too far in controlling their employees beyond what is reasonable.

For instance: Tattoos.  Personally, I don't like tattoos.  I think that getting one is a poor choice, I wouldn't get one, but many people do get one, and they don't get it to be hidden somewhere, whether on their leg or their arm, and sometimes on the back of the neck, and I figure, to each their own.

Businesses, however, have been moving toward not allowing visible tattoos on their employees in the name of professionalism. Now I tend to agree with that for certain kinds of employment, such as office jobs, banks and the like.  I don't want to walk into my bank for instance and have the guy or girl handling my account to be filled with all manner of tattoos.  Its not that I don't think they should have them but in a setting like that, its not something that I would expect to see in such an environment. Walking into fast food...my expectations aren't really that high, so I would expect to see tattoo's here and there, on one or both arms, on the neck, maybe small ones on their face.

The same goes with how people talk, specifically the slang they use.  Mind you, I'm personally a grammar Nazi, or at least I try to be; and I do so because I feel like there's a level of intellect conveyed in using proper grammar that lends itself to a certain level of credibility over sounding like a 2nd grade dropout.

That being said, there is a line that I wont cross when it comes to what I expect in certain environments.  Where I do expect a business professionalism from certain employment archetypes, the fast food industry is just not one of them.

Which brings us to our ever favorite Chik-Fil-Ay.  The picture above is of a note that a manager of an undisclosed location placed in an attempt to quell the "unprofessional" language, even referring to the employees as professionals.  You know who believes that the people taking your orders and are flipping burgers in fast food are professionals?  Exactly no one!

These people are not professionals, These jobs have been embarrassments for the last thirty years, are some of the worst paying.  The only job set that out scums fast food is Walmart.  When you're at about a level playing field with Walmart, don't expect that you're going to attract people of a professional five star restaurant.  You're not going to get the professionalism of a 5 star restaurant worker because those workers are probably already working at a 5 star restaurant and wouldn't be bothered by a fast food environment.

Frankly, if you want a professional environment they you probably should stop working at Chik-Fil-Ay and actually get a professional job.








                                                                                                                               

What Direction Do We Go From Here?

The dust has cleared and the midterm elections are over, and we liberals got creamed!  Its a matter of fact!  It doesn't mean that our beliefs are any less right mind you or that our values are substandard.  To the contrary our values and beliefs are very much a force for good in the country.  Instead of being selfish and only pleasing to a select few of our countrymen, our prefer ed way of helping the country is by developing, passing and implementing legislation the most amount of the population the best way possible.Things like better gun legislation, Women's right, workplace equality, marriage equality, and increasing the minimum wage to a level that the demographic that largely works in those areas are able to sustain themselves in a way that doesn't nearly make them homeless from month to month.

These are all important things to the health of our economy and country  But we have a massive problem as liberals.  Where we're awesome at coming up with these ideas and working to implement them when they do pass, we fucking suck at running campaigns that will get us elected to the positions that will most allow us to actually accomplish these things.  That's why we got our asses handed to us across the country!  I watched as one state after another turned from blue to red as republican after republican take seats in their districts, setting up a really bad problem that will either lead to more gridlock in Washington and now in the state senates and congresses, or see some dangerous legislation start passing that would threaten to undermine the incredible progress that we've already made in repairing the damage that was done by President Bush and the republican control ed congress that existed between 2001 and 2009.

So where do we as liberals and democrats go from here?  Well right for the moment its far to late to spring back and win the 2014 midterm elections.  What we need to do now is regroup.  The first thing we need to reflect on why we lost and study our opponent and try to understand why they won.  If we dont learn from it we're going to keep making the same mistakes over and over again and keep letting the republicans win.   If we keep letting them win its going to throw the country further and further into a downward spiral.

The next thing we need to do after studying what went wrong for us and right for them, is sit down and come up with an actin plan to retake the ground we lost on the state and national levels.  We're in for a turbulent storm over the next two years.   Mitch McConnel is the most likey person to be chosen for the republican majority leader and he's been quoted on camera as saying that "he looks forward to working with President Obama".  I think we all know that what McConnell really means is he and the Republican majority run house will work with President Obama, so long as he's doing what they want him to do, or else gridlock and government shutdowns are likely to continue.  We'll see.

We can take the senate back but its going to be a hard fight.  But I think if we were to correct our campaigning issues between now and the primary elections in 2016 that we can not only take back the state level senate's and congress' we lost this year, but add to the number of states we turn blue, while at the same time getting the majority of the house back in our national senate and house and set up a really good environment for a real progressive president instead of the one that we got.  Dont get me wrong, Obama has done a number of great things, but at the same time he's also allowed though a number of dangerous things things like more tax cuts for the wealthy for instance, though. 

Lets make the next two years count so we can repair the damage that's about to be done to the country via bad republican policy.

Please Don't Vote - A Message From The Republican Party

Have I ever mentioned that I absolutly love The Young Turks?  If you dont know who they are, The Young Turks, or TYT are a political based commentary news show, the largest on the internet and the world.

One of the reasons I love them so much is because of their blunt real view of world events and breakdowns of them. One of the big things that they support?  Getting money out of politics.  The mock advertisement below is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.






The Pure sarcasm centered around a single truth about our national politics especially is very exposing to the GOP.  The above is such a blunt description of what the GOP really wants from the American public, the unfettered ability to make decisions without the burden of the American public holding them accountable for passing legislation that would only help the top one percent or blocking things that would actually help the rest of the country, but not their doners.  This mock "advertisement" bluntly outs what the GOP's intentions really are.

Now often when I get on the subject of voting I get a pretty well defined few that dont vote because "they dont care".  What these people done realize is them not voting is still a form of voting.  The more people that are progressive in though but dont get out and vote for whatever reason, are actually still casting a vote for the ideals they dont want taking over the country in lue of their self serving ideologies.

What people need to realize is that all these politically charged issues that directly affect them, be it the Affordable Healthcare Act or Net Neutrality or any other high profile subject, its all decided by the people that get voted in to office.  That's why you see things that the larger majority of people wanting certain things to be done by the people that get voted in, completely ignore those people and do whatever they want, and voter's be damned!

These people are counting on you not to vote so they can go on their merry way ruining everything in their path.  Get out there and vote these people out.  The bigger majority we have on the state level the more we can actually get the country moving forward again, instead of being in constant gridlock.

Who Has The Right to Say What Consitutes Marrage?

So right wing pseudo-historian David Barton, in an interview conducted by televangelist Kennith Copeland, believes that no government can ever legalize same sex marriage because "we have an inalienable right to marriage to be a man and a woman and no other combination.  The short statement  below gives a verbatim of what he said.

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barto

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

I think this good that he said that.  Please understand that he's not right in what he said and what he said is very.  No argument there.  The reason I like this statement is because its bluntly telling of where this push against LGBT rights is truly coming from.

The problem is that this is purely a religious stance and it always has been.  The only people that actually believe that gay marriage should be politically banned.  The problem with that idea is politics are not supposed to take a religious posture under the constitution.   Article one also known as the first amendment talks about the freedom of expression and religion.  Focusing on the point it makes on the freedom of religion, expression of it, is specifically says that no law would respecting the establishment of relgion was to be made, nor the prohibiting the freedom of exercise of it.

That's a very important couple of points to be had out of those statements.  First of all, and many liberal progressives have rightly made this argument, that because anti gay marriage political pulls are purely religious based and not scientific, they should be allowed to marry under federal law since neither the church nor the state are allowed to establish a religious stance as the legal standard.  The other point that is that religion must be allowed to be freely exercised.

This causes a problem because once gay marriage becomes  a fact of federal law, and it will gay and lesbian couples will be able to legally marry everywhere but at the same time, most people who are authorized to preform a marriage are people in the clergy.  The question that comes to mind, should they be required to preform a marriage that under their religious beliefs they cant preform.  I would say no.

What needs to happen is more people outside of the religious element needs to be legally approved, however that process is done, to conduct wedding ceremonies. That way, we dont have to worry about the argument that the government is forcing religion to conduct these marriages against their beliefs.

That's not to say that businesses should be allowed to turn away based on the owners religious beliefs.  They are not a religious element, they are a business that's licensed by the government and is bound to proper federal business law.  In that religions should not be allowed to essentially copy-write and trademark the term "marriage" as if they are the only people who can use that term.  Marriage is marriage regardless if its under federal law or under a religious institution.

The ultimate point is marriage is not a purely religious term, despite what leaders of the religious attempt to portray. They dont get to change the definition though legal political means to make themselves more comfortable in the world. To do so violates the principles this country was founded on.

And The Insanity Continues

you know, Id like to go a month at least without having to open my mouth about gun violence in this country.  Heck Id do with a week at this point, but apparently the universe doesn't want me or anyone else too and this is becoming an almost daily event.

On the heals of the mass shooting here in Washington state another senseless tragedy has struck a family in Indiana and the loss of a 13 year old boy.

so what happened?  The yet unnamed shooter had returned home to find it had been broken into went out on a tirade though the neighborhood.  He then ran into 13 year old  Kobe Jones.  Now did Jones make any physically aggressive moves against this guy?  No.  Was he the one that even burglarized the guys house? Again no!  So what did Jones do that this guy felt he needed to take his life?

Jones was making fun of him for having his house broken into, or so the report by NBC news alleges in the title of their article.  The yet unnamed shooter felt this was enough to fire his gun at this 13 year old boy 9 times and killing him.  

The guy probably had his gun legally but clearly he's a person that probably shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun.  And this highlights the problem with the ludicrously lax gun laws in this country.  Thinks like this keep happening and its not getting better its getting worse.

No no that's all right, 2nd amendment, dont you dare suggest that we start making sure that people who get guns from these legal sources aren't checked to make sure they're responsible enough, dont have a violent background.  Lets just give them the guns and make our money and if a 13 year old boy gets shot nine times and killed, well that's just business baby!

Here's what I dont care about: Gun rights advocates and the supreme courts misinterpretation of the second amendment.  It may be a right to own something but rights are really more like privileges, and this one is being massively abused.  Its time to stop the madness and start making absolutely sure the people that have this kind of easy access.  That misinterpretation comes from one thing: Greed.  That's the short and the long of it.  They dont care about gun violence, though they make sham statements to the otherwise.

There's noting wrong with reasonable gun control.  Doing noting on the outside chance that adding one small piece of legislation or two in the interest of public safety, will be an invite to go too far.  Its deeply misguided and a dangerous stance.  Obviously the reality is, sane sensible gun reform is needed because this free for all is not working and its costing us dearly.

Police Use of Firearms...Off Duty

During the day yesterday I was messing around on Twitter and I got this interesting question in the form of a request to vote in an poll.  The question was "should cops be able to carry their badge and gun while off the clock?"

To answer that I have to assume two things. 

1. The question is asking about government issued equipment
2. That equipment being misused on off duty hours as well as the identification being misused.

Unfortunately I have to look at the fact that abuse of power in law enforcement has been a bad problem most everywhere in the US for decades and we've seen some pretty bad examples of it over the past couple of years, which im not going to list here for time and space sake.

But on duty is not really the question here.  The question is really the use of government issued equipment being used and potentially misused off the clock. 

I would say, and emphatically, no!  Police officers should not be allowed to carry their issued equipment off duty because that equipment is not issued to them for their personal use.  Its issued to them for the expressed use while on duty (and of course sometimes even that gets abused)

What I think should happen is that all guns and badges of police officers should be kept under lock and key at the station the officer is stationed at, when each they are off duty, and then returned to them at the beginning of their next shift.  Always the same badge and gun so they can keep the officer accountable for the care of those two specific Items, but outside of patrolling and emergency calls, those items should not leave the building or be taken home with the officer at the end of his shift.

If the officer, outside of his job, is additionally properly authorized to carry a personal weapon via the gun licensing laws that everyone else not in his job has to abide and is properly licensed to do so, then he can carry that.  Government issued should always mean "NOT for personal use"  And in my opinion, Carrying your badge for work is like me wearing my old Circle K uniform everywhere during my leisure time on my day off when I didn't even go into work in the first place.  You just dont.






                                               

Guns Everywhere and Not an Reasonable Person in Site

Often times when tragedies happen the debate over gun control becomes a central topic and its nothing if not a heated.  Proponents of gun control always talk about reasonable gun control, the gun rights advocates seem to always lose about  100 IQ points or so, at least the unreasonable ones do.  So whats the answer?  In this country its not a simple question to answer but I can tell you whats not the answer: Dont do anything to ebb it and make damn sure that we make the problem worse by expanding so called "gun rights" to unreasonable levels from the already unreasonable levels they're at now.

One of those unreasonable levels that  was in connection to some statements that Anita Sarkeesian, yes this is connected with Gamergate, made and the reaction that came back from those statement, namely,  Rape and death threats.  Pretty classy.  Not only did Wu literally drive her from her home because of these threats she ended up having to cancel the Utah State University speech that she was going to give because of further threats made not only against her but other feminist students attending the speach.

In an anonymous email sent to Utah State University, a threat was made against her and attendees stating that the sender was going to commit a "Montreal style Massacre style attack" (which happened in 1989 In Mantreal, Canada by Mark Lepine who killed 14 Women students and wounde 13 others)at Ecole Polytechnique School of Engineering at the University of Montreal) and said quote: "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs.  This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I'm giving you a chance to stop it.  Even if they're able to stop me, there are plenty of feminists on campus who won't be able to defend themselves.  One way or another, I'm going to make sure they die."

That's a pretty straightforward in your face statement that left no question of what this guys intentions are.  He meant to end lives.  As bad as that is that's not even the worst part.  The University's response to it is.  Now they were going to bring in more police and bomb detectors.  Ok that's good, but when  Sarkeesian indicated that she would really like to make sure no guns were brought into the auditorium to further secure it bringing in metal detectors in to make sure nothing gets through, the university's response was less than acceptable.

They told her no, that Utah is an open carry state and if they want to carry then, oh well!  But this guy just made a major threat to commit the worst school shooting in American history! Nope dont care.  Our rights are more important than your safety.  Now thankfully Sarkeesian did cancel as mentioned earlier, and given the climate and situation, I think that was wise on her part because there was a strong possibility that whoever this person was that sent the threat, it sounds like the treat was confirmed as being a legitimate threat that needed to be dealt with, and I certainly hope the perpetrator of the threat is found, before he does in fact, harm someone.

When things like this rear their head, often the conversation of gun control will come up, much to the dismay of gun right advocates and it really shows how violent and backwards our country has become.  Just on my own Facebook I had response to a meme I favorites and shared, where Sylvester Stallone had said some pretty pointed things about guns that was most decidedly anti gun.  The response of one person from that? "Shoots".  Calling to shoot someone because you dont agree with someone?  Really?

This is indicative of the out of control mentality that the NRA and those that follow them have.  Its just plain irresponsible to believe that with people showing such a mentality that guns should be available in an uncontrolled way.  Regardless of the rulings that were made about it in the supreme court, we simply cant afford to keep this madness going.

And gun rights advocates wonder why we think they're insane.

Michael Brown - A moment of Balanced Reason

So with Ferguson Missouri's, tensions are more than high, they're volatile and I tend to side with the community on what they're demanding.  I do believe he should be brought up on at least wrongful death charges and should lose his badge.  However, in dissecting this event I want to be balanced in answering the question of why the officer who fired the bullets have not yet been brought up on charges.  I also want to make clear that in THIS post I'm not going to address the clear misconduct of the Ferguson police in this case...I'll leave that to my next post.

First of all, there is no question that the officer in question fired those bullets, that's not being contested.  As for why he hasnt been arrested...I dont think they can just yet.  Will they?  they should, but that remains to be seen.  Now why do I say that they cant arrest him just yet?

It comes down to the evidence they currently have as opposed to evidence they need to make the indictment and arrest.  As I'm watching the news updates I get the feeling that they want to get to the bottom of what happened so they know how to proceed.    Just the simple fact that shots were fired and someone is dead does not qualify as damning evidence in these cases.  They are investigating and they cant make arrests like that until the investigation is over because if they do make an arrest, then they have a wrongful arrest/imprisonment and false charge allegations on their hands.

Now personally (since I'm doing commentary)  I think the officer went too far and should have fired ONLY a warning shot and should have made damn sure that young Mr. Brown was armed before deciding to take his life.  By all accounts once he was hit the first time, he gave up and complied.  that should have ended the shooting right there.   Accounts also state he had his hands up high enough where, if he were to go for a weapon, he would have had to make and obvious movement to get to that weapon.  No observers report that he did so.  This is why I tend to side with the community on this.  The officer should not have continued firing.  Also if he had a weapon on him, isn't it reasonable to assume he would have used it in this so called robbery?  Since it was not and as it turns out, he wasn't armed something very fishy is going on here.

Arrests are the end result of thorough investigations, not the result of people demanding it to be so.  We as citizens cant expect that we open our mouths and the process suddenly changes because we say so.  There is a process, and the laws that run along side it are part of that process. As much as we hate that process at times like this, that process doesn't change based on an emotion.  It's there for a reason.

In a tregedy like this, wanting answers is only natural.  But chaos is not the way to go about it.  The FBI has been called in to investigate so lets wait and see what they determine.

Now how will they proceed from this point on?  Time will tell.  

How We Should be Paying Down the Deficit!

Ive been trying to figure out how the GOP thinks when we start talking about ways to pay off the deficit, and I think I figured them out at least to some extent.
Paying off the deficit is actually not something any one thing can accomplish. When we start talking about things that would help, we as liberals will talk about singular things that would help, but not be the end all solution to the problem. the GOP will take those points and isolate them further and say "see that's not going to work because its too small a thing to pay it off". The problem, that's a half truth. If we look at any one single thing working by itself, then yes it wont work because its like bailing out a sinking ship with a teaspoon.
But when you match up one small solution with a lot of other little solutions we could be doing you start to get a more comprehensive solution. So in the spirit of that here's what I think we need to do to help.
1: We've been giving money we cant really afford to give to other countries. As an example, since its been in the news a lot in the last couple of weeks, Israel. The US is giving roughly 2.15 to 3.07 billion every year. That money is being used to fund this genocide path Israel seems to want to continue on. We're OK with this? We could be keeping that money and, instead of funding something else unless absolutely needed, apply it to our national debt. it may not be a whole lot compared to our owing as a nation but like my mother said, every little bit helps.
2: Corporate Taxes. This is a two fold issue caused by one thing: Corporate tax loopholes. Now I dont pretend to know what all those loopholes are but there are quite a few. Close those loopholes and make it so corporations have to pay their taxes. There are several big issues I see here. A: Corporations are opening offshore accounts and shuffling their earnings there and only reporting what they kept in the US and only paying taxes on that, I would even imagine keeping just enough here to pay the bare minimum they can so they can keep their wallets fat. We need to find a way to make it so they cant do that. I think we need to find a way to make sure that money is taxed because it was made here and make sure companies have no way out of it. B: Companies Based in the US moving their headquarters to foreign countries. Walgreens is a recent example of this...thankfully they decided not too but they were going to relocate corporate from Chicago, IL to Switzerland. Why? Because then they would legally be considered foreign companies and they are barely taxed if at all in the US. I think if companies are going to do that then they should still be taxed for the business they conduct within the US like everybody else in the US is. C: Speaking of foreign companies that do business in the US, such as BP for instance, should be taxed. I dont mean taxed on their world wide earnings of course, but certainly taxed on their earnings within the US. I would think that has to be reported, and if it isn't it should be. The extra revenue could be used to pay down the debt even faster! D: of course, raising corporate taxes is an excellent Idea, it doesn't even have to be a lot! Again every little bit helps! I would be willing to bet even a 10% raise would be a huge help in paying down our debt! With that, make it so that there isnt a loophole to allow corporations dont have a way to get out of it!
3: Speaking of taxes, how about the super low taxes on the rich? I think I have to pay something like 33% in income taxes? Why are the rich, who make massively more paying massively less then me? New tax bracket with a higher tax rate specifically designed for people that dont really have much of a tax bracket...the financially well off. Again it doesn't have to be super high but certainly a bigger percentage than what the average low wage earning American pays...hey look, more money to pay down the deficit with.
That's only a few major examples of what we can do and I'm sure there is more! What you do with all that is keep the programs that help the down and out funded instead of cutting them and take all the extra funds raised by implementing all the things I mentioned, and apply it to what we owe to other countries as a nation and then take that extra when everything is paid off and work on improving infrastructure which is badly deteriorated. I mean there's just so much we can do with that extra when it indeed becomes extra!
Here's my prediction: Some fool is going to try and pic this apart and tell me I'm 100% wrong. That's fine...I love watching people be wrong. its kinda entertaining actually!

Spent: Looking For Change (Documentary)

I felt for my next blog I would share this documentary.  It was posted today and is very powerful and I highly recommend everyone watch it!  Really opens your eyes as to whats going on in the country where our financial system is concerned!

British TV: CURE ME! I'm Gay!

The British are well known for their dry sense of humor, but the latest "joke" is no laughing matter.  British TV Doctor/personality Christian Jesson is taking the serious matter of sexuality and exploring whether or not it really is possible to take a gay individual and turn them strait though gay conversion therapy methods.

Jenson, whom is gay himself and in a relationship will be undergoing a number of the treatments  while being filmed,  and then take a "sexuality test" which involves use of a device that measures sexual arousal.  The purpose of this series?  To test their legitimacy.

This could be both a good and a bad move.  On the one hand the show will interview a number of people that have undergone reparative therapy.  A negative result from that is they will interview someone that swears that they went though it and it worked well and they are living happy normal lives.  The problem with that is it gives an unrealistic and a non factual view of homosexuality, which has been proven over and over again though medical science from many different branches of medicine that homosexuality is natural and cannot be changed.  The below is probably one of the best explanations of how the genetics work where homosexuality is concerned.

The science has been well documented in the field and yet the religious zealots of the world seem to want to continue to throw their beliefs in our faces as if theirs is the only proper conclusion forgetting that science has never been a friend of religion and that more and more people whom are part of the gay community don't believe in biblical religion at all.  And that's the sad part.  The stance or belief that homosexuality is not natural is purely a religious one.  So basically they want to shove their beliefs in the face of others when they themselves freak out at anyone else presenting anything that might be different or contradiction of their own beliefs.

Now the positive that I see that could come from this is, its proven in public view that homosexuality completely natural and that reparative therapy doesn't work.  The claims of the church completely debunked perhaps more than enough people will open their eyes and start allowing things to get moving and make it possible for gay men and women to be able to live a normal accepted life rather than having to hide who they are for fear of the wrath of a god they done necessarily even believe in.  That's a day certainly to look forward too.

GOProud Founder Is Not So Proud Anymore...

I obviously follow politics very closely, as the tone of this blog clearly shows.  I also think its super clear that I'm a liberal.  Every once in a while a story comes up that makes me think...what? and this didn't happen sooner?  One such story, that I picked up from The Young Turks, gave me one of those moments tonight.

Jimmy LaSalvia Co-founded a group called "GOProud", which was to be a safe haven for Gay and Lesbian men and women...who also happened to be Republican.  This happened in 2009.  Its the beginning of 2014, five years later...hows it working?  Apparently, not as well as LaSalvia had intended.

LaSalvia announced that he's officially left GOProud AND the Republican party and is no longer Republican!  Why?  LaSalvia states that he " but I just can't bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer" and that he can not support the "tolerance of bigotry" any longer...just 5 years later after he co-founded GOProud. 

This is not a surprise to me.  Quite frankly I'm surprised he made it as long as he did.  But it looks like LaSalvia finally realized what the larger gay community realized a long time ago about the Republican party.  Guess what everyone...the Republican party hates gays.  They always have.  The proof is in the pudding.  Now you might say that not all of them do, and you may be right... but as a whole you cant tell me that the Republican party accepts us just because GoProud exists.  Thats not how it works!

Dont believe me?  Lets take a quick look at key people from the Republican party that has either gotten into office or tried to get in an office of some kind have said about the people in the gay community.

Sarah Pailin:  believes homosexuality is a perversion that can be “cured” through the power of prayer and most recently she has defended Duck Dynasty.  Back in August 2013, she even recommended that Washington should emulate the Duck Dynasty family!

Mitt Romney:  There's so much to say about Mitt here I just couldn't cover it all.  here's a few glaring problems with Mitts beliefs on Gay rights. First after his term as Massachusetts governor, he changed his views on nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians at the federal level, not supporting them at the federal level, but only on the state level.  He later signed the same pledge Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry from the National Organization for Marriage that says he will support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, defend the Defense Of Marriage act in court and nominate anti-LGBT judges.  When Chris Matthews of MSNBC asked about what Romney thinks the difference between marriage and civil unions is, Romney said, "Well, I would rather have neither, to tell you the truth."  Romney opposes sexual orientation and transgender-inclusive hate crimes laws.  Now he seems to have toned down a bit, claiming he is still opposed to gay marriage, but does support some gay rights, like equal rights in employment.

Rick Santorum: that the GOP must maintain its opposition to marriage equality to avert political suicide.

Ron Paul:  Paul spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996.

Michele Bachmann: Has equated teaching about homosexuality to child abuse, has called it a sexual dysfunction and a disorder

John McCain:  McCain does not support same-sex marriage.  While in the Senate, McCain voted against extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. He campaigned in his home state of Arizona to amend the state's constitution to forbid same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

These are the people that the Republican Party tries to get voted into office.  You know, the offices that vote on important issues such as...whether members of the gay community have the same rights as the rest of the country? Yes there are other issues that they stand for that are just as dangerous, but dont pertain to this subject, granted, but these are strong issues that the GOP support and obviously go out of their way to attack. They are voted in by the voters of the party...which means which means that non politician members of the republican party support those same values.

These kinds of things make me wonder, why do people within the gay community, small group as it is, continue to align themselves with a party?  Jimmy LaSalvia finally got it.  The GOP hates the gay community!  They dont like you!  They would be happier if you didn't exist at all.  Being fiscally conservative is fine, but why give yourself the same label as a people that consider you to be sub-human, and abomination, sick and not worthy of equal rights?  The GOP doesnt want something like GOProud around...they just dont want the gay community to exist at all.  They would love the country to be set back 50+ years where gay rights are concerned, and return to the time where being gay was indeed a crime and one you could be imprisoned for.  Good luck with that.

Origional story by The Young Turks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPfzlolPdfc

Money and Poltics

The big question today:  Why is it so many pieces of good legislation that would greatly benefit our country and the American people get shot down?  Are these bills honestly thought to be bad bills?  Whats the deal?  Why is almost everything in near gridlock when it comes to taking any given problem that effects the American people and solving it, or at least working toward solving it?

Corporate person-ship is a huge problem in the political realm these days.  Over the last century or so Corporations have been able to wiggle legislation in that allows them to be able to play a major role in the decision making of our elected officials?  How?  Money!  Under the current law corporations are viewed as people, protected under the constitution as individuals with many of the rights extended to them as a result?

What does this mean?  It means that corporations have a say in how things are run in this country.  The huge problem with this is that not only do they have that huge say, they can also use their substantial profits to effect policy making. 

Now would they really do something like that, I mean really?  They are just a small group of people for each corporation, the top decision makers.  Well unfortunately is yes on both counts.  Not only can they but they use it all the time to increase their profits at the expense of the rest of the country.  How?

Money is unfortunately a huge motivator in the political world right now.  Campaign donations and donations of other types are heavily relied on for re-election interests as well as lining pockets.  This is why you see things like anti gun control groups, anti environmental groups, religious groups and so forth, adversely effecting politics and gumming up the things that need to be done.  Worse yet these same groups will introduce legislation that not only dead stop good forward movement to correcting serious problems, but will often introduce legislation that would make problems worse!

the answer?  Get money out of politics and stop elevating corporations, businesses, to the level of being recognized as people .  Right now with money involved politicians are able to be bought.  That old saying "every man has a price" certainly applies here.  The politicians we are voting in to represent the American people's will are naming their price and corporations are paying it gleefully.

The result? You see the will of the people not being followed on many subjects.  If the peoples will were being followed you would see things like stiffer gun control laws being passed, pot being legalized across the board.  Gay marriage would have been legalized a long time ago, and we would have no where near the problems we have with environmental legislation, or even the attempted hindering of the Affordable Healthcare Act.  Its all corporations that are holding these things back in one way or another.

The sooner money is ejected from politics the sooner we can get things on the right track. I will take work but It can be done.

Pot Legalization

Legalization of Marijuana. We have come a long way haven't we?  We've gone from being totally illegal across the board in every state in the union and overpopulated prisons, to now states dropping one by one, so to speak, legalizing it in one fashion or another.  Some states for medical use and of course most recently Colorado Legalizing it for recreational use.

The result has been a split down the middle between those who are for and those who are against the use of marijuana.  This is really not a surprise as the battle between the two factions has been intense for years.  We've seen the result of that over the last week pretty clearly.  Not so much from the pro side, but definitely from the anti side.

two major stories broke.  The first one earlier last week involved the supposed deaths of of 37 people in Colorado that had died of a marijuana overdose shortly after the 1st, after the recreational use laws had gone into effect.  Did this really happen?  Short answer...no.

So where did this story begin?  Apparently on a website called Daily Current, a website that is similar to The Onion website, and like The Onion, its a satirical website dedicated to creating spoof stories based on current events.   Unfortunately, it seems, just like Onion, Daily Current suffers the same problem of uneducated readers stumbling on them and taking them seriously without checking sources or validating the story as being real.  The story was taken from satirical and elevated to a hoax story spread though the internet by the anti pot supporters, and presented as real and factual...seems they've taken a cue from Fox News.

Thankfully there are still smart people out there that verify their sources before opening their mouths.  Unfortunately politicians are not one of them...as usual. 

Which brings us to the second story that broke this past Thursday, January 2nd.  The state of Kentucky held a hearing of the Kentucky House Health and Welfare Committee, which in part discussed the idea of legalizing the medicinal use of pot.  and of course State Rep. Robert Benvenuti (R-Lexington) had to open his mouth.  Benvenuti said that he believes that the availability of medical marijuana in Kentucky could be "a Trojan horse" for legalizing recreational weed in the state and could lead to the deaths of children, also stating that he could fill the room with different municipalities such as police and first responders who could report on all the deaths of children based on the effects of marijuana.

Oh really now?  And can Mr. Benvenuti, provide documented proof of his statements showing in absolute terms and not is speculative ones, that use of pot was what resulted in these children's deaths?  Well of course he cant!  Republicans that speak out on issues like this rarely are able to provide proof of anything and the "proof" they do provide is always easily debunked with actual facts. 

So here are some facts for you:
      Death caused by tobacco (cigarette) use:  more than 440,000
      Death caused by alcohol use:                    more than   88,000
      Death caused by Marijuana use:                               0

That's right!  there are no known cases on record of anyone losing their lives by overdosing on marijuana! But that's what these people want you to believe, is that all kinds of death tolls are in our future if this goes though.  There's no truth to it.  There is a study out and about that states that a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 the amount of THC to even be close to being at risk of dying from an overdose.

The reason for this resistance from the GOP and their supporters, even though there are no solid verifiable facts to back up their claims?  Is it because they are genuinely concerned about a persons well being while using pot?  Well of course not! for decades they've been fighting on the losing side of this "war on drugs".  They are very well aware of the real data.  But like most things, they ignore real data, unless it supports their argument of course.

The basic idea:  Lets control everything we can while at the same time claiming we want small government. We see it every time they open their mouths, and of course when that happens we get set back in our countries progress...and that's their ultimate goal, to make things the way they used to be so they can claim they are honoring their sky god, when really they probably have some plan in mind that will line their pockets.  It seems for them when you peel back the layers that's what it always comes down too...you just have to sit back and wait until it manifests itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/marijuana-overdose_n_4538580.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/daily-extras/hoax-story-claiming-marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-fools-some-not-all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/fill-a-room-killed-by-marijuana-kentucky-politician-says_n_4576996.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003


           

Dear God, Please Bless This Public Classroom

Recently in South Carolina, Lawmakers began to push for new legislation that would mandate...ready for this?...Prayer sessions in public schools.  According to the article printed on the website "The Raw Story"

The bill in question? H. 3526 which directly states:

"All schools shall provide for a minute of mandatory silence at the beginning of each school day, during which time the teacher may deliver a prayer, provided the school allows a student to leave the classroom if the student does not want to listen to or participate in the prayer."

Now whenever the public school system started here in the United states, one truth holds true:  the Public School system is a governmental institution.  It's run by the government, funded by the government and the government sets the academic standard for students to strive for.  But the key here is that its a government, not a private, institution.

Now when I look at what South Carolina lawmakers are trying to do, there seems to be a glaring defect in their plan that they seem to have glossed over as they try and stomp though all this.  The first amendment, instructing future lawmakers that there would be NO LAW that would establish any kind of state religion.  Over the years that amendment has been scrutinized by courts and, in part, has been found to include the use of religion in the public school system.  As we've seen this evolve in the public education venue, we've also seen it reduced to not being an official part of the academic curriculum.

Now is it really wise to make such a move?  After all many of the GOP and some Democratic lawmakers firmly believe that the reason things have gone so astray in this country is because there is a tragic gaping hole left by leaving out religion in that venue.  So the question is should it be filled by governmental decree?

Absolutely...NOT!  The public school system has evolved to be a place for secular education, to prepare students for the workforce and give them a taste of different areas of expertise so they can A: get basic reasoning and living skills and B: narrow down what they want to do to make a living in their lives.  Its not there to provide a religious education.  There are plenty of religious based schools out there now, that are private, that have been instituted for those who want their children to have an education that include a religious environment. 

The implications are disturbing, as South Carolina lawmakers contemplate this change in policy.  Its a direct attack on what the Supreme Court has ruled on over and over again first of all.  Second of all, what kind of prayer are we talking about?  Hindu, Buddhist, Shamanistic, Wiccan, Taoism, Shintoism, Christian?  And what about the growing number of students that dont believe in a god, Atheists and Agnostics?  We need to remember that the America that exists now is not the same one that existed two hundred years ago!  This is no longer a Christian country now, if it ever was at all. The public School system has become a diverse hodgepodge of different religious belief systems.  Simply stating that a student can pray to the God of their specific belief system or even leave the room during a time of silence is a simple whitewash of whats really going on.

This is a very cloak and dagger way of trying to establish a state religion that's more comfortable for the religious right and for the so called democrats that are like them.  It cant be allowed.

Original Story on "The Raw Story":

The Young Turk Story

The Question Of Minimum Wage

How is it we live in a world where people who are in to parent homes where both parents are working, full time, still cant make ends meet?  There is this thing called minimum wage that exists.  Its the lowest base hourly wage that the federal law allows businesses to pay their employees for their services, and as it stands right now its not enough to allow a family to lift themselves out of poverty, even with both able adults are working.

Now in 13 states the minimum wage was raised on the first of the year.  This is certainly a good thing.  The families that were working at $7.78 will now see a slight raise in the money that they have to work with on a monthly basis.  But is it really enough?

Not really.  Here's why.  Lets take Colorado for instance.  Colorado, for instance saw a $0.22 raise on the first of the year bringing the states minimum wage to $8.00 an hour.  If an employee working at minimum wage worked 40 hours a week 4 weeks a month they would only see overall monthly wage increase of $35.20.  That's really not a lot.   If you think about it that's really not much to do anything with.  and more disturbing is that amount is added onto gross earnings, not net.  That means that Colorado households wont actually be getting an extra $35.20.  out of that will be taxes taken out.  Now its a good possibility that those families might get those taxes back at the end of the year, but again that's not much added on to that either.

Its pretty well agreed that raising the minimum wage across the board is a very important step to pulling Americans out of poverty and help them thrive.  If they have more they can spend more on things they need, get bills caught up so they arent working for those bills and maybe even develop a savings account that will help them not fall into such kinds of debt so easily again.

So the question becomes, how much?  How much is a satisfactory amount to raise the minimum wage.  Law makers are looking at raising it across the board to $10.10 an hour.  Now that's a significant raise!  Back to Colorado for instance that would be an increase of $336 per month at an average of 40 hours a week, a far cry from the double digit increase that was just enacted. This would allow savings accounts to be built, debt to be paid and increased spending.  That latter, increased spending, may not happen immediately...but it would increase as people lifted themselves out of debt.

A second question comes into view.  That of reaction by businesses to such a drastic increase.  Many say that increasing the minimum wage, especially that drastically would cost jobs, not help people.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the legendary greed of big business, nothing should be put past them.  What they would probably do is try and cut jobs, and short of that, try and cut hours, negating the wage increase.

So what needs to happen to make sure that big business doesn't negate the wage increase?  First as the increase happens they need to be made to keep their prices for whatever service or good they are offering static so it doesn't effect their consumer base.  Second, businesses need to not be allowed to cut employee hours or let them go...maybe perhaps put a limitation on how long an employer must wait to take such a drastic direction.  Instead of firing or cutting hours, these employees, perhaps these business should look at their own business practices to see what they can do to lower their overall operation costs, without effecting their employees adversely.  Firing employees or cutting their hours should always be a last resort.

Employer and business reaction not withstanding, a significant minimum wage raise would be extremely beneficial to American hourly wage workers.  It may be slow going to get a wage increase that drastic, but depending on how such a wage increase is approached, it would be a move in the right direction!

Climate Realities More Serious Than Predicted!

In a recent article from the Huffington Post, it was revealed that the effects of Climate Change may be far worse, by a long shot, than what Climate Scientists originally thought.

For many years Scientists studying Climate Change and its affects said that global warming would warm the globe by about 2 degrees in the next hundred years or so. It seems that prediction has changed. Now they are looking at a number that doubles the originally perceived rise to about 4 degrees Celsius, or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2100. Many governments agree that the original belief that the prior estimate of 2 degrees Celsius was the absolute maximum comfortable threshold our planet could permanently warm by before problems we already face would be drastically aggravated.

2C would be a bad enough problem, but according to lead Researcher Steven Sherwood, a 4C rise would be catastrophic! Examples he specifically sited were “making life difficult if not impossible in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet” All three events would of course change the face of the inhabitable planet as we know it.

Why the sharp temperature increase? As the globe warms its been found that the amount of cloud cover decreases. Clouds are kind of a natural shield against the suns rays, preventing the sun from heating the earth too quickly and unabated. The less the cloud cover the faster the rise and the worse the problem.

The article finished up by stating a second report that stated that “we should be concerned about caused by rapid warming” or a cause of concern as Huff reported. “many of the biggest threats that climate change presents to are are ones we are not ready for”

Well why not? Why aren’t we ready for it? The answer is simple: Its because, where there is no real argument as to whats going on in the part of the science community about whats going on and what its cause is, there is a chasm that splits the rest of the world, especially politics, between people who live in reality and the people who fight against the change that’s needed to fight climate change and what now looks to be the catastrophic consequences of sitting and doing nothing.

What needs to happen? We've been saying it all the long. On a consumer level we need to shop smarter and greener. No nothing extreme as vegetarianism needs to be adopted by all. We're talking about all the little things that add up to something much bigger. CFL bulbs, using less damaging products in our homes, decreasing the amount of garbage we produce as a household and so on.

On a larger more industrial scale, we need to start developing practices less harsh to our environment. Develop new technologies that will get the job we need done, even jobs as simple as getting us from point A to point B.

Whats the reality as it stands now? This new information is going to be fought over, people will attempt to dismantle it. I don’t know about other countries, but here in the US this new information will be locked up in politics, and any governmental action, which since the world runs on politics these days, is a frightening notion! Those on the Liberal side ( real liberals mind you) will try and draft bills that will address the problem, and good from brilliant them, they are the ones I vote for, and gridlock will happen because those bills aren’t something that career Republicans want passed...because that affects their pockets and they might get a little less in funding from their lobbyist friends. What a horrifying notion for them.

This all goes to show two things: 1: We need to deal with this problem and not keep sweeping it under the carpet like we have been because 2: We desperately need to get money out of politics. Much of the gridlock is not because people don’t know that the problem is very real and very dangerous and needs to dealt with. Its more the money thrown at politicians by corporate entities and their lobbyists that stand to gain more money for themselves by preventing any kind of change from happening.

Can it be stopped, or even slowed? Of course it can. When humans stop abusing the world around us it has an amazing ability to heal itself...but it cant do that if we continue the way we're going now-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html?ir=Politics&ref=topbar 

Nature Article: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing