Paula Deen and the "liberal agenda"

A letter in today’s paper criticized Matt Lauer for his handling of the Paula  Deen  interview (when she finally showed up) , branded all of those who are disappointed with Ms.  Deen as “Lauerites” and slapped the nonsense syllables  “liberal agenda” on top of it all. I, like many, was and am a Paula Deen fan. I am now a disappointed one, I must admit. Ms. Deen conquered a nasty divorce, and agoraphobia, but the thing she couldn’t overcome is the thing which has apparently brought her low.

Let’s break it down. Whether or not you feel Ms Deen deserves  forgiveness and another chance to continue making the multi millions her self-created empire earns is a personal decision. There are however, several  points to be made which  bear notice.  First is that,  like many modern media darlings, there are those idolatrous fans  for whom Ms. Deen, like Kim, Martha, Amanda, et. al. can do no wrong, so any negative opinion  regarding her (their)  actions doesn’t count.   Second is that regardless of Ms. Deen’s central Georgia upbringing and the accompanying racial  intolerance she no doubt learned at home, she is now 65 years old, lived through the Civil rights movement, and as a rational adult had two choices.  She could have  seen the error of her ways and discontinue using hate speech regardless of her upbringing  or  alternately, continue to harbor those prejudices and  public behaviors based on them.  In light of her position as the public persona  of a financial  empire, it was unfortunate that she apparently  chose the latter option.

The larger issue for me ( since Paula Deen can retire with a mountain of money and slide into memory) is the letter writer’s use of the phrase “liberal agenda.”  The number of corporations who rushed to cut ties  with Ms. Deen  immediately are indicative of how little concern she applied before speaking her mind in public.  Her biases and opinions like all of ours, are our own until  we  unveil them publicly. Her continued public ties with her vilely racist brother  are even more indicative of her lack of judgment.  It is especially worthy of note that in addition  to Walgreens, Home Depot, Food Network, Smithfield, her publisher, Target, J.C. Penny and Sears the issue was far from liberal. It was financially conservative , and apparently reflects their lack of faith in Ms. Deens ability to redeem herself in the public eye, The most significant proof of the total lack of “Liberal Agenda” conspiracy is  that  Wal-mart,  the world’s largest retailer and a company run by generations of rabidly  conservative Republicans,  dropped her like a hot rock.. 

So what, then,  is this “liberal agenda?”  As far as I can determine, the liberal  agenda  it is the radical  idea that all Americans, regardless of an individual’s personal feelings and biases  either way, deserve equal treatment before the law and in health care  and opportunity in society – a level playing field. Period! Now that I put it in writing I guess I actually can see why the Rabid Right fears  it so much.  Equal treatment also extends to marriage, freedom from religious intrusion into one’s life, freedom from job. housing, voting discrimination as well.  Using the phrase “liberal agenda”  like  swear words  does much more to describe the emotional pathology of the speaker than the attitudes of those who espouse it.  

Huckabee/Bachmann -a study in venality and irrelevance.

Sometimes, public pronouncements show much more about the originator than the subject matter.  Mike Huckabee’s  statement  re: the recent DOMA decision was “Jesus wept.”  As a professed born again Christian, Huckabee  has apparently either  read precious little of the statements and sentiments  ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament  or has his own RSV (Redneck Standard Version) which he has translated  in his own way.  The general aspect of mind ascribed to Jesus is acceptance, tolerance, and above all,  as he is reputed to have said himself, “Love one another.”  Apparently Huckabee reads that as “Love one another except for  those against  whom you wish to discriminate.”  As some on the far right (Faux News -  “USSC  overrules God”) have exaggerated it,  this decision  threatens religious liberty. Again, Huckabee , the Catholic Bishops and their ilk have it diametrically backward.

 

In truth, no person or group who wishes to hold the view of marriage espoused by conservative Christians (incorrectly, in point of law, long before DOMA was even passed) that marriage is an exclusively religious sacrament, will ever be forced to marry a same sex partner or have such marriages performed in their church. The net impact on these folks - Nada, Zip, Zero, nothing. What is rally their issue is that they might no longer be able to dictate to others who don’t feel as they do, the terms under which they may love, marry, etc.  Once again it must be pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, and freedom to force your religious beliefs on others.

What is particularly troubling to me is that these conservative “Christians” are the same group responsible for the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and the strongest resistance to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. They have a centuries old history of violence and opposition to those whose crimes  are  apparently  simply differences of opinion.  They are the witch burners in 17^th century Salem;  they are the Inquisitors of 15^th century Spain; they are the hooded nightriders of 19^th and 20^th century America; and they are the pontificating  Huckabees, Bachmanns, Santorums and , Robertsons of the current day.

Their issues are based on a book, the interpretation of  which even most Christians cannot agree upon.  Literalists, allegorialists, other translations, all are in the mix.  Hell, even Bill O’Reilly called them Bible  thumpers!  Few today except the mentally challenged would argue that the entire world was ever covered by water in light of what we now know to be true about continental drift,  since this would also argue that Noah either crossed the oceans and rounded up animals which existed in North America, or there was a second creation to populate the Americas with animals foreign to the middle east.  Even those who will acknowledge the allegorical nature of the Flood Story will insist that all of Jesus teachings regarding tolerance, love, acceptance are void because of a verse in Leviticus, and all the other prohibitions in the same chapter are irrelevant. To believe that to the point of being willing to discriminate,  socially disable and pass laws against persons of the same sex who profess their love for each other and desire to marry is not only non-Christian, it’s nonsensical.

Ms. Bachmann’s comment was “Marriage is ordained by the hand of God” If that were  held to be true, then every civil marriage in America would be void and atheists  or agnostics would, presumably be unable to marry. As usual, Bachmann says what she wishes to be true and displays her stupidity for the world to see.  The real terrorists we ought to be wary of are the ones we can’t easily detect. They want, as do Muslim extremists to punish the rest of us who disagree with their extremist viewpoint(s). There is little difference in mindset between Michelle Bachmann and her ilk and Islamists who want , as she does, to bend all of us to her (their) narrow belief system whether we like it or not. Thomas Jefferson would shoot Michelle Bachmann on sight.     

If, as Huckabee claims,  Jesus wept, it was tears of joy, because someone finally listened! It also might be tears of shame for the horrific things which have been  and are continuing to be  done in his name by the Mike Huckabees  and Antonin Scalias of this world.

A case study in mediocrity, venality and hypocrisy.

If you have any sense of irony whatsoever, here’s something to try to get your head around.  In the recent gloriously correct USSC decision regarding the unconstitutionality of several provisions of the defense of marriage Act (DOMA), the decision was surprisingly narrow. I was shocked by the 5/4 split considering that there is really no shocking legal point here, other than that of fairness for all Americans. A “no brainer”,  right?

You might think so, but there are even more mysterious factors at work here.  Consider the case of Virginia (the state, not the little girl who wrote Santa) in 1924. The conservative Christian backlash against “Reds” , eastern and central  Europeans  in general, teaching  evolution in schools,  non-Christians  and non-Whites was in full swing. Manifestations of this include the Sacco-Vanzetti case, “Red scares”  ( 249 Russian immigrants deported without cause, 5000 citizens detained without cause),   Socialist elected officials unseated, the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, and ultimately the Scopes trial.

Virginia’s reaction to all this was to pass The Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act banned marriages between persons described as “White” and those described as “Colored”, referring to such unions as “miscegenation “.   Two such persons, whose crime apparently was loving each other, married  in spite of the law  and were promptly charged, tried, convicted  and sentenced to be incarcerated for a year. The USSC got the  case as  Loving v. Virginia. The couple was Mildred and Richard Loving. The decision in their case, when ruled upon,   was that the Virginia Act and, in fact any act preventing marriage between persons of color violated their constitutional right to equal status before the law.  The decision in Loving v Virginia was a unanimous 9/0 decision.

Fast forward to 2013, The DOMA decision regarding essentially the same issue – equal treatment before the law for all Americans is a 5/4 decision.  Voting against the decision was Antonin Scalia, with no surprise, since he is homophobic and Catholic. The greater surprise to me and a vote that should outrage all of us is the one cast by Justice Clarence  (“pubic hair on the Coke can”) Thomas.  If the former reference escapes you, look at the transcript of the Anita Hill testimony of his confirmation hearings.  OK, OK so he’s a sexist pig, get to the part about the vote on DOMA.  Well, Clarence Thomas, a Black man, married to a White woman and living in the state of Virginia, has clearly shown his moral bankruptcy and crushing mediocrity by voting as he did in a case which, but for Loving V. Virginia he’d never have heard.

At Last Common Sense Prevails!

USSC today, overturned the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allowed refusal of federal equal status for all married couples. Was it necessary – absolutely! Was it right – even more absolutely (if you can have more than absolute, lol) In Loving v. Virginia,  a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, SCOTUS determined that marriage partners of different races were protected by the Constitution as having equal marriage rights. The  case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored." The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

 

 Today’s ruling is little more than a logical extension of this decision to include same sex couples as well as mixed race couples. The wonder is that there was not a unanimous decision doing so! Antonin Scalia in his minority dissension claimed SCOTUS had no jurisdiction in the current case. By his standards, SCOTUS  should have had no jurisdiction in Loving either! The four dissenting justices all have their own baggage. Scalia’s earlier public pronouncements have made it quite clear he is a homophobe. Clarence Thomas is simply, not SCOTUS material, and the other two generally sway whichever way the doctrinal wind blows.

 

As I have previously written, the real issue  here is that 200 years of state to state reciprocity ought to be the issue. I may not, as a citizen of New York, believe that some Georgia bumpkin with an 80 IQ should be licensed to drive, but I must honor his valid Georgia driver’s license in my state as long as he obeys the law. Similarly, I may not require a tourist to buy auto insurance in my state. Many states offer reciprocity to other states’ citizens in many areas; Alaska, for example offers Bar admittance to attorneys from about 25 other states who have been passed the bar exam in  their respective states’.

 

No state requires a legally married heterosexual couple, regardless of race or nationality, to remarry in their state! All states respect every other state’s marriages, which is interesting, because they might be civil, Wiccan, Islamic, Jewish, you name it.  No problem.  Pay taxes, file jointly, get survivor benefits, etc. If the Federal Government allows even one state to decide which marriages they will recognize we are on a slippery slope, as this precedent could be extrapolated to other things. (like driving, paying higher sales tax, etc, for out of staters).            

 

SCOTUS did the right thing because of just that - it was the right thing. All the religious persons, bless their hearts, who laud this as an answered prayer would do well to remember that the status as it was , was also due to the machinations of religious folks who felt just as strongly that they were right as those who thought DOMA wrong and that DOMA was God answering their prayers. This was, pure and simply, a legal decision based on 5 persons interpreting the constitution one way and 4 others another way. In another time, with another court, it might not have happened. Remember, Pat Robertson prayed for disease to remove several liberal justices not so long ago.

More lies and misinformation

A young friend recently joined the scrum piling on President Obama for going to Africa, claiming he “should pay for the trip himself. ”  I was gonna let it alone but I just couldn’t get it out of my head. Other than a stop over in Ghana, this constitutes the President’s first trip to  Africa. We’ve played this game before, but anytime the nation’s first black president spends more than a dollar, the right wing freaks out about Barack Obama “wasting taxpayer dollars.” Back in 2011, the right claimed that First Lady Obama’s Africa trip would cost taxpayers millions, but even if you use numbers that the White House disagrees with ($424,000), they weren’t even close.

This time the cost of the trip seems to be the issue, although we know other travel “costs” have traditionally overstated by those for whom this President can do no right. Right wingers have  whipped up the fake outrage over a leaked document showing that President Obama’s upcoming Africa trip could cost $60-$100 million. What these same people don’t tell is that George and Laura Bush loved to go to Africa on the taxpayers’ dime…a lot. Anyone interested in the facts. If you weren’t outraged by George W. Bush’s  2 Africa trips and First Lady Laura’s additional 5 trips to Africa, then shut the hell up. And, no , they didn’t “pay for it themselves!@”

During Bush’s second term alone, Laura Bush made five “goodwill” trips to Africa. President Bush made the trip twice during his presidency. Here is former First Lady Bush at an event the night before their trip in 2008, “Tomorrow, President Bush and I leave for what will be my fifth trip to Africa since 2001, and his second trip to Africa since 2001. I’ve seen the determination of the people across Africa — and the compassion of the people of the United States of America.”  Wow, that’s a lot of trips to Africa. In 2007, Laura Bush also took her daughters with her, and they went on a safari. You know, the same kind of outing that President Obama just canceled.

Not much was going right for George W. Bush. Even before the economy crashed, his legacy was 9/11, the unpopular Iraq invasion, and Hurricane Katrina. Back in 2003, Bush laid the groundwork for making aid to Africa his legacy. One of the areas where Bush drew praise was that he spent billions of taxpayer dollars on aid to Africa. It’s funny how conservatives don’t utter a peep about George W. Bush dishing out more than ten times the amount of taxpayer money on aid than Obama will spend on his trip.

For some odd reason, the GAO (General Accounting Office) records on the cost of the Bush family’s Africa travels seem to have vanished. The media has contacted the GAO, but no specific numbers have been provided yet. President Clinton’s Africa trip in 1998 cost taxpayers $42.8 million. George W. Bush’s two trips five and ten years later were likely more expensive.

The Washington Post story didn’t say that Obama’s trip will cost $100 million, but that the trip could cost $60-100 million, and that the cost was based on similar African trips made in recent years, “Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.”

President Obama hasn’t made any trips to Africa, except a 22 hour stopover in Ghana in 2009, so it is pretty clear that Secret Service is basing their cost estimate on the cost of the Bush trips. Since George W. Bush made two presidential trips to Africa, it is likely that he spent more money in today’s dollars as President Obama will on his trip.

The reality is that presidential trips are expensive. It would be fair to be opposed to all of them, but the hypocrisy of only being outraged when certain presidents travel is unacceptable. George W. Bush appears to have had himself quite a little African spending spree, but apparently cost only matters when Barack Obama is the president who is doing the traveling.

My friend also criticized the trip (Don’t know what the connection is) on the basis that President Obama should first have to earn the money, I guess.  The exact quote is “I'm sure other presidents have made many costly trips in the past... but come on... here’s an individual who hasn’t earned his wealth through hard work. He's been handed his checks by tax-payers because he GIVES the people who don’t pay taxes what they want.”  I  suppose this implies that all Presidents should have “wealth” and that they all earned it.  Does the last president fit that mold? Not only no, but hell no! He has failed in essentially every business endeavor he has ever attempted , and unlike the current President, whose income pre-White House was at least honestly earned, if not large, “Dubya” actually was involved in some really shady dealings. The excerpt below is from the New York Times

“James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented. The excerpts from the books and news articles are supplemented by the links at the bottom of the page to the cash flow charts of the bin Laden-backed BCCI money which was funneled into the Bush family in return for favors.

The Bush family fortune originated with the opium trade in China in the 19th century. This is a well documented and established fact. The Bush family history, as the Kennedy family history,  epitomized the old saying "behind every great fortune lies a great crime" This , I guess is what my young friend meant by "earned their wealth." Perhaps he would prefer a drug lord for our next President?

Just watch the movie!

Sometimes shit happens that just makes you go "huh?" It happened this morning, as I heard someone say  they'd seen "The Man of Steel" last night. We'd seen it several days ago and liked it fairly well, so I said, "How'd you like it?" The answer: "Too much theology; I didn't 'preciate it."  Now I'm a fairly perceptive kind of guy, but whatever I saw other than the ubiquitous  good  vs evil story , which is the crux of every superhero movie ever made, wasn’t theology.  I asked where he saw it , he said it was all through the movie. I had nothing else to say. I suspect this person has a very hazy definition of theology and confuses it with morality and philosophy, neither of which he really understands either. If you really want the tortured, morally conflicted superhero looking for his role in the world look to the night sky over Gotham City.

Superman, and all the accoutrements of the story surrounding his origins were invented as a  comic book superhero created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, high school students living in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1933. Superman helped to create the superhero genre and establish its status as paramount  within the American comic book culture of my youth (late 40s-to mid 50s.)

The origin story of Superman, as invented by Siegel,  relates that he was born Kal-El on the planet Krypton, before being rocketed to Earth as an infant by his scientist father Jor-El, moments before Krypton's destruction. Discovered and adopted by a Kansas farmer and his wife, the baby boy  is raised as Clark Kent and through the adopted parents develops  a strong moral compass. Very early he started to display superhuman abilities, which upon reaching maturity, he resolved to use for the benefit of humanity. Superman,in his alter ego of  Clark Kent,  lives and works  in the fictional city of Metropolis. As Clark Kent, he is a journalist for a Metropolis newspaper called the Daily Planet. All these details are consistent with the movie, and all were well established by WWII.

Why go into all this? I do so because instead of the above mentioned religious connotations, tenuous at best, the real story is Superman’s immigrant   status!   In the most recent movie we see the character as pushing the boundaries of acceptance in America.  His extraterrestrial origin  challenges  the notion that Anglo-Saxon ancestry is the source of all that is good and right.  Through the use of a dual identity, the Superman story  allows  immigrants to identify with both their cultures. The mild mannered, thoroughly Americanized Clark Kent represents the assimilated individual, allowing Superman to express the immigrant’s cultural heritage for the greater good.  Others might  argue that some  other aspects of the story reinforce the acceptance of the American dream, since the only thing capable of harming Superman is Kryptonite, a piece of his old home world.  

In spite of all this literary analysis, the simple truth remains. It’s a friggin’  comic book story,  made up by high school kids in the depression to make money for food. 

It makes one wonder!

Why is it that:

Anytime a Congressman proposes cutting food stamp benefits  they will be a fat Republican?

Sarah Palin has a job?

The  depth of your sleep is directly proportional to your dog’s need to wake you to go out at 5 AM?

No one will tell Donald Trump his hair makes him look even more  vain, idiotic and self possessed than a real hairstyle would?

Someone can be recalcitrant without first being  “calcitrant?”

Most of my former students are more intelligent and of more use to society than the entire Kardashian clan?

All those hard rock Republican farmers in the Midwest gladly accept farm subsidies, while still denying global warming?

Hollywood studios for the most part will spend mega millions on CGI excessively  violent destruction and apparently pay a scriptwriter about 39₵

No matter how recently you peed,  you’ll have to do it again the instant you get in the shower?

Sean Hannity is all fatutzed about the exact same NSA phone monitoring program he lauded when “Dubya” incepted it after 9-11?

Not one wireless carrier has complained about the program, above, or gone to court to refuse to comply?

Anyone believes the more extreme claims of chiropractic even though  the man who made it up claimed  spinal misalignment causes Smallpox and deafness?

Any human male would marry Michelle Bachmann after hearing her speak more than one sentence?

Chocolate is the only vegetable product that can speak to you?

Pet food manufacturers don’t make a dog treat from cat turds rolled in kitty litter?

No one has ever been “gruntled,”  so how can they be disgruntled?

Some people literally believe Bible stories which cannot be true (the “firmament”, the world totally covered with water, Noah’s grizzly bear and tiger roundup) but  refuse to believe visible proof that glaciers are melting due to the earth warming up.

Scariest thing so far today!

This video is disturbing on so many levels. First, it's disturbiong because it shows that this giant python can open a door. second, it shows that the "owners" of this creature are so incredibly stupid as th think that a 15 foot long snake, or any reptile for that matter,  is an appropriate thing to keep as a pet. Reptiles think one thought - one - period. "Is that small enough to eat?" If their pea sized vbrain processes the answer as "yes!then youd better watch the kids, dogs and cats and spouse. Wild animals are inappropriate as pets. period!  


                                                            http://vimeo.com/9841493



This is clearly a big snake being kept in a family dwelling. NO. NO. NO!

Lies, Lies. and More Lies!

Once more we have lying liars telling lies regarding the current President and Administration. The most recent  smear campaign uses the code word “Obamaphone” to describe partially subsidized (a whopping   $9.25 off  the  monthly bill)  cell phones or landlines  for  qualified persons who apply. There have been  accusations, some accurate, regarding multiple phones per household (prohibited) and some of the phones being listed on Craigslist for sale, also obviously wrong.  To qualify for Lifeline (the real name of the program) assistance, the individual’s household income must be 135% below the national average. The household may also only use the Lifeline Assistance Program for either one wired connection or one wireless plan. A recent  attack by Arkansas Rep. Tim Griffin was claimed in his words to be an attempt at  “reforming” the program. His proposed legislation — the “Stop Taxpayer-Funded Cell Phones Act of 2011″ — actually would have eliminated the cell phone subsidy. Fact Check climbed all over Rep Griffin for implying as others are doing yet, that this program was a tax, and an Obama administration giveaway. Is anyone interested in the facts?

The first government provided cell phone came about in 2008 under the Bush administration. The very idea of government subsidized phones for low income people originated during the Reagan administration and brought about the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Owing to the fact that people generally need phones to apply for jobs and enroll their children in school, and elderly citizens need to be able to call their families and emergency services, the government decided in the '80s (under Ronald Reagan, no less) to institute the Lifeline Assistance program. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, which offered either cell phones or landline services to low-income Americans. Telecommunication service providers are required to pay certain amounts to the federal USF(Universal Services Fund). These amounts are based on their profits and end-user revenues. These telecommunication service providers include wireless telephone companies, wire line telephone companies and specific Voice Over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

 Telecommunication service providers may directly charge their customers on their telephone bills for their required USF fees. Bills may have a line titled, “Universal Service”. This is the small charge that benefits Lifeline and provides low income families and individuals free government paid cell phones so they too have access to new job ventures, family connectivity and a way to contact authorities in case of emergencies. However, the FCC does not require these “Universal Service” charges to be passed on to the customer. Each company has to make a decision that will best fit their corporation.

In other words, the cost of these services were incepted as a cost to the providers, but because they were allowed to, most of them have passed a small share on to you, rather than reduce their already huge profits. Remember, they are not publically regulated utilities (especially wireless ones) and they are free to use and abuse you as they see fit, which they will, and do!  The average universal service fee passed on to consumers is between $2.50 and $3.00 monthly. Your wireless provider passes this cost on to you because they can, to maximize profits, not because they need to do it to remain solvent. It is not a tax, as many on the right imply. More importantly, it is not an Obama administration initiative.  If you're upset that Obama is giving "freeloaders" gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don't be.

In the first place, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the "Obama phone" narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn't paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers, as described above. Remember, they don’t have to charge you anything, they just do!

Finally, there have been, as described earlier, charges of abuse of the system. A recent audit placed the amount of abuse at around  9 % annually, which is measurably less than the percentage of Medicare fraudulent charges perpetrated by Fl Governor Rick Scott’s health care corporation!

In January, the FCC completed an audit of 12 states’ service records and found that 7 percent of subscribers (269,000 of 3.6 million) used more than one subsidized line, costing Lifeline $35 million a year. A second audit released this month found 135,000 duplicate subscriptions in three more states, costing another $15 million. The FCC said it disconnected those phone lines, generating $50 million in savings.

 The audits are part of the FCC’s overhaul. The changes, enacted in February, include:

 ■The creation of a database to prevent one person from having more than one subsidized phone line.

 ■The creation of a database (by the end of 2013) to ensure subscribers are eligible for Lifeline.

 ■The end of the Link Up program, which gave phone companies $30 for each new subsidized connection. Link Up was originally intended to cover the cost of installing a new phone line. But it gave prepaid wireless carriers a “perverse” incentive to sign up ineligible subscribers. (Not all cell phone companies took the Link Up subsidy.)

The FCC claims the overhaul will save up to $2 billion in three years, reducing growth in the fund and “keeping money in the pockets of American consumers.” The commission fails to state whether the savings could reduce the universal service fee. The Lifeline program will use some of the savings — up to $25 million — on a pilot program to help low-income persons gain access to broadband Internet service.

The commission plans to assess its changes after six months and one year. The GAO followed up on its own assessment of Lifeline in 2012, finding that the FCC is making progress in addressing Lifeline’s vulnerabilities.

Why did I tell you all this?  I point this out because the program as incepted is a must have for many Americans, regardless of which inarticulate wretch you see in a You-tube video and because these recent integrity initiatives and reforms are the responsibility of President Obama’s administration.  The mythical Obamaphone program should be called the Reagan-Clinton-Bush-aphone! So instead of getting angry at the man for something he didn’t do, laud him for trying to fix the loopholes!

The sky is falling; the sky is falling!

I understand that what I am about to write  will upset many of my liberal friends, but I cannot read all that has been written recently on the subject and remain mute. The persons screaming about the Government  tracking cell phone conversations (they're not, just who calls who, when, which the police can get at any time anyway) are many of those who scream the loudest about “why does the Govt. take so long to track down and apprehend terrorists and/or criminals?”. The cell phone dump in Boston was a prime example of using that data to apprehend murderers. If you are so paranoid that you feel  threatened if the Government knows who you called ,  and when, then I am truly sorry for you.

 These persons weave a web of "what if” around the issue of personal data which is 10 years too late in the first place, and based on the absurdly hypothetical in the second. I was concerned more when the Government monitored what I read ,  until I realized that in factual matters for me, it was irrelevant.  The inevitability of computer network interconnectivity was obvious 20 years ago.  Reality is that if Snowden at the NSA had remained silent, we would all be going about our business with no thought to who we called or why it matters.

  If you seriously  believe that the elected government and those whom it controls (the NSA, etc) are worse enemies than Al Qaeda and such domestic terror threats as we know exist, then you are a fool; and a Tea Partier at heart  A more proper concern would be the issue of who uses the data and what for.  Oversight committees exist for that purpose.  If your life, like mine, is an open book,  then  let them collect away.  If they ever attempt to use any of such data for actual suppression  of civil rights of law abiding citizens, then let’s have a revolution.

   Otherwise those screaming  “4^th amendment” are as bad as the “2^nd Amendmenters “  they ridicule over the handgun issue.  The reality is that I know many liberals (myself  among them) who believe that the gun lobby is egregiously in error in their reading of the 2^nd amendment.  Likewise many of us believe the wording in the context of 1789 meant to apply it to “A well regulated militia.”  Some are unwilling, however,  to apply the same logic to the current brouhaha over phone communications. The USSC ruling on phones (Katz) relates to recording conversations (wiretaps) only.  In addition to the Katz standard, a search occurs when law enforcement  “trespasses on the searched person's property”, which, since cell conversations are broadcast  by a middleman (the carrier) makes the records the property of the carrier, not the individual. Seizure doesn’t even apply, since no cell carrier went to federal court to try to avoid releasing said info in the first place, and the standard for bad seizure relates to the unwillingness of the person whose property is being “seized.”   

And finally, a person like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden deserves no sympathy or thanks for what they have done for a very simple reason. They are dishonorable men, both of them, because they released their respective information  while still in the employee of organizations they had made commitments to. Manning has no defense for what he did, since he is covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Transmission of  any classified material he inappropriately copied /kept/ released which in any manner aided entities with which the US is in conflict would constitute  a capital offense in time of declared war by Constitutional definition. In Snowden’s case, he had options. He could have resigned and then given such information as he had, i.e. “The government tracks cell phone data” to the media ,  as Daniel Ellsberg did re: the Pentagon Papers.  Doing it while a NSA employee is simply dishonorable , not to mention stupid. It would be interesting to know if the fact alone was even classified; since all the hoo-ha is not related to alleged improper use of the data, simply it’s transference to the government.

When the second submarine to which I was assigned transited the end of the Cowal peninsula and entered The Minch, the water between the Hebrides and the Scottish mainland , we were, over a period of several years, met by Soviet intelligence gathering vessels. They were there because another traitor had released crypto information to the Soviets, which they used to decode Atlantic  Fleet Submarine operating orders. The man in question, John Walker,  is lucky to be in federal prison and alive.  Whatever motivated these two, and I’m not convinced it wasn’t simply  the desire to be seen as “moral watchdogs,”  the gist of what they did is the same.  The vast majority of us have the same reasons to be concerned about who knows who we called and when, as we do to fear a meteorite strike in our front yards.

Speech Therapy

Many, including me, have written regarding the plethora of  linguistic misusages which English teachers have bemoaned for a century. Many of these stem from words that sound similar but are spelled differently. These are correctly known as  homonyms,   prime examples of which are “their”, “there” and “they’re.”  Another, especially abused,  is “mute” in place of “moot,” as in “The point is mute.”  Aaaarrgh!

          There is another abuse, much more widespread, in fact heard at least once in most TV  newscasts,  press conferences, etc. This is the incorrect usage of   “I” and “myself” when  a simple “me “ will suffice.  It is heard from well educated persons who apparently think they are speaking more correct or “proper” English in their usage.

          An example would be “Mom will come and pick up you and I.”   No,  she won’t! She’ll pick up you and she’ll pick up me; she won’t pick up “I.”  Unfortunately, far too many would say,  “ Suzie and me will go for a walk” (or the true illiterati will say it even worse, “Me and Suzie, etc…”  In truth, of course,  Suzie will go for a walk and I will as well, not “me.”          

          Another twist on this is the usage as in “They gave the money to he and I” No, wrong in both pronouns. It was given to him and to me (or “us”, vice “we”)

          A subtler twist is those who seem to feel that “Myself” is somehow more formal than “me,” which, of course, it isn’t. There are cases when its usage is mandated, such as “I took it myself.” Nothing else works in that structure but “I took it” is sufficient.  Myself has always sounded a bit like multiple personalities. There’s me, and then there’s myself, begging to be freed.

          Of course, it’d be easier to know proper usage if we heard it consistently, but we’re bombarded daily with song lyrics and talking heads who misuse the language professionally. “Billy Mack is a detective down in Texas, he knows exactly ‘what the facts is’" Really? And just what is they?  

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

One must wonder sometimes, if the infallible, constant, eternal and unchanging God of  Christianity changed his mind between the Old and New Testaments! The O.T.  God is one angry and even vengeful dude:  “Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.” And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. A small number when compared to the Egyptian infants already massacred by God in order for things to have proceeded even this far, but it helps to make the case for “antitheism.” By this I mean the view that we ought to be glad that none of the religious myths has any truth to it, or in it. The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.  Of course the N.T. God has changed his tack and, apparently his mind, if Jesus was correct.  The problem he seems to correct God along the way, Hmmmmm.

Really?

      Perhaps half aware that its unsupported arguments are not entirely persuasive, and perhaps a bit uneasy about its own greedy accumulation of worldly  power and wealth, religion has never ceased to proclaim and forecast an Apocalypse and a “day of judgment.” It apparently bothers no one that Jesus himself predicted it would occur while some of his peers were still  alive. When this obviously failed to happen, “scholars” fudged the data and have continued doing so as recently as last year. This has been a constant scam since the first witch doctors and shamans learned to predict eclipses and to use their half-baked celestial knowledge to terrify the ignorant. It stretches from the epistles of  Paul, who clearly thought (and apparently, hoped) that time was running out for humanity, through the LSD like fantasies of the book of Revelation, which were at least memorably written by the alleged Saint John the Divine on the Greek island of Patmos, to the best-selling pulp-fiction Left Behind series, which, although supposedly  “authored” by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, was apparently generated via the old Bob Newhart-esque shtick of letting two orangutans loose on a word processor. “To be or not to be, that is the gazortenplat!”

A Tea Party Top Ten

                  Top ten ways to tell a Conservative from a Tea Partier

10.   Conservatives blame the horrible climatic disasters in the midwest on President  Obama; Tea Partiers blame it on the “Gummint’s Secret Weather Machine”

9.     Conservatives genuinely appreciate the US Military and are patriots in their own way; Tea Partiers fear the military will some day be used to make them stop stockpiling illegal weapons, forcibly marrying twelve year olds, urging Cabinet members be “shot in the vagina” [yes, really], and blocking Michelle Bachmann’s “husband” from coming out.  

8.     Conservatives think Sarah Palin was an “unfortunate” choice in 2008; Tea partiers think she should be vetted for sainthood.

7.     Conservatives wish Michelle Bachmann would shut the hell up, Tea Partiers think she’s a hot savant.

6.     Conservatives consider Ted Nugent a reasonable spokesperson for the gun lobby;  Tea Partiers think he’s a pussy.

5.     Conservatives think Bristol Palin is a talentless, teen mom, stardom seeker; Tea Partiers think she’s relevant, hot, and probably a genius.     

4.     Conservatives think Benghazi provided  a good opportunity to attack the President on foreign policy and discredit Hilary Clinton; Tea Partiers believe ity provided a failed opportunity to vaporize North Africa in a cloud of nuclear dust.

3.     Conservatives believe there might be some truth to the whole global warning thing; Tea Partiers know it’s part of President Obama’s secret plan to do…., ah hell, whatever they want to blame on him this week.

2.     Conservatives think the Diary of Anne Frank is overtly sexual in nature and should be removed from High School reading lists, Tea partiers home school and think the Bible (King James Version only, please) is all the text book any “right thinking Amurcan”  ever needs.

1.     Conservatives think Trayvon Martin was  a depraved delinquent,  legally shot  by a true American hero;  Tea Partiers think George Zimmermen saved America from  a Liberal Zombie Apocalypse Clone plan to kill all white persons.

But, as Mr. Spock would say, it's illogical!

I am sick and tired of seeing the following leap of illogic:

 Someone speaks of the issues that "liberals" if we must use labels, have espoused over the years, and then, as if there were direct linkage, blames the federal debt on liberals - a lie (look at the Reagan and both Bush's debt increases in times of relative good economies) and pretends that makes the entire position null and void. An accurate paraphrase might be: "because we don't like most of the things liberals think are important, we'll blame the debt on them to hide the fact that we are bigoted, mean spirited and ignorant." below are some things "liberal" which have little economic impact at all, but are kicked to the curb by the Right, because their real agenda (the Far right) is really anti "everyone else different from me." 

the 21st amendment -  no cost, but more than half of Americans were granted full rights as citizens for the first time. (for those of you who are Conservatives, that means votes for women.

The end to legal racial  segregation -  no cost, actually cost savings in the South where dual school systems  were outlawed

Roe v. Wade -  According to several studies, the decrease in urban crime during the nineties (which ran counter to the predictions of every law enforcement expert in America) was a direct result of thousands of unwanted children not being born to parents who had no capability or intention of raising them.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting rights Act of 1965 - two of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed, forced those who would violate both the spirit and letter of the Constitution to stop doing so  (the only cost here is enforcement in those cases where bigots and haters still resist obeying the law)

Clean air and Clean water Acts and the creation of the EPA  (signed into law by that environmental activist Richard M. Nixon) - again, yes, there are costs, but look at China if you really want to see how bad things could be without them.

Medicare - The big lie here is based on one (or both)  of two assumptions   1: Some persons just don't deserve as good health care as others because they're not as important or as smart, or as white, or whatever.  (And don't you dare tell me there are not those who hold this opinion - I have worked with some)   2: Medicare is an expense we wouldn't have if it weren't for all those liberals who helped enact it. The reality, based on seeing countless case studies, is that in the absence of affordable health care, people often don't go to a doctor until their particular medical condition is so severe that they present at the local emergency room in crisis. A medical emergency  that could have been resolved  with preventive care or early treatment becomes an extended hospital stay and the cost is borne by the taxpayer anyway, but it's a much larger cost!  Lack of simple prenatal care carries with it a huge economic cost in extended hospitalization, in some cases for both mother and child.

Equality for all Americans: The Defense of Marriage Act, touted by Rick Perry and others was  a miserably misdirected solution to a non-existent problem. Letting same sex couples marry would cost nothing, and have zero effect on anybody else's marriage. Resistance by conservatives on this point is based on religious bigotry, and flies in the face of all logic. Christians who say they believe in a New Testament God, reject all the little annoyances in Leviticus like dietary laws, selling their daughters into slavery, or killing their neighbor for mowing the lawn on Sunday, medical treatments for rashes, etc. Hell, you can't even get a Born Again to sacrifice a dove or lamb or a  calf anymore, and when Santeria worshippers do it in Miami, they go nuts! But homosexuality - well  now, God was really serious about that, so let's ignore everything but that. Sounds silly when you look at it like that, doesn't it. Almost certainly the apostle Paul felt that way too, which is why he urged men not to marry if they didn't have to.  (Was Paul g**?) If your marriage needs defending by the government, it has already failed quicker than a Kristen Stewart  romance.