The Keystone XL Pipeline Isn't What We Need

This post might not have a major impact to the West and East Coasts of the United States, but it does talk about the nightmare that the Republicans are trying to pass through congress and the ability to have the Keystone XL pipeline run from the Alberta Tar Pits down to the Louisiana Gulf. Now I am not above using fossil fuels to provide energy. But the pipeline has too many big promises that will not come true. It is become just another big lie that the GOP thinks they can push through.

The CEO of TransCANADA does say that the State Department report on the proposed pipeline will have about 50 permanent jobs. 50! Nothing like a major impact on the job market into the future. The state department does say that it will provide about 50,000 temporary jobs like waitresses and shopkeepers for about 2 years. Put in about 4,000 temporary construction workers into the mix. That is great for 2017 or 18 when you have 50,000 people moving away from the pipeline and the temporary camps that will be shutting up after the pipeline is done. Maybe we can find more part-time jobs for people since corporations can't seem to waste any penny of profit.

We understand here in North Dakota what cost an oil spill has on the economy and the environment. The economic impact is felt because the oil companies are fined a small amount, and the state government foots the bill if the oil company doesn't fulfill their requirement to clean the entire spill up. In fact, ask Alaskans or Floridians how easy it is to clean up oil spills and how short the time is that the oil is a minor hindrance to enjoying the environment. Here in the 2nd largest oil producing state in America, we have had oil companies flaunting their breaking of the rules. We have had radioactive socks that are supposed to be stored with Nuclear waste just thrown into dumpsters and stored en mass in abandoned buildings. We have had oil spills and leaks that the oil companies had to notice, but conveniently missed. Oil flow regulators have conveniently become broken and miss leaks on the pipelines. But I just know that wouldn't happen on the Keystone XL, would it? Oops, maybe I spoke too soon.

Alberta is known for it's gas and oil. Unfortunately, the canadian oil companies seem to know how to spill lots of crude like their American counterparts. The West Coast Native News has been compiling stats about oil spills in Alberta. And the thing is that spills are not uncommon. In October alone, Crude Oil and toxic produced water was spills in the amount of 600,000 Liters. 1 Liter is equal to .264 gallons. So what we have is approximately 158503 Gallons of toxic stuff being spilled in Alberta for 1 month. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil or 3774 barrels of crude or water mixed with crude that is spilled in Alberta in 1 month. Now let's ask this question. What makes us think that the companies that are spilling all of that sludge in Alberta will make the pipelines safer here in America? We know that the federal government regulation is a joke. We understand that the companies will not police itself. So the question still stands. Why do we think that the Keystone XL pipeline which is carrying oil through the heartland of the United States will not have the same problems?

Another thought came into my head. Remember when this was first proposed? Why was it that we needed to have this pipeline? Oh, I remember. It was for energy security and independence from the rest of the world. We needed this pipeline to produce crude so we can refine it and eliminate the importation of oil. Does anybody remember the arguments of the GOP back then? And why can't the GOP members of congress who have fought tooth and nail for this remember those arguments? And the reason I believe that this pipeline isn't being used for energy independence is also from the GOP. Remember when Iraq was hot and heavy with American casualties? The GOP was screaming that we needed energy independence and that government regulation had caused oil companies not to be building oil refineries for the past 20 years. And the reason that gas prices had risen so high is because of the lack of refining space. So where does this make sense outside GOP land? You have a lack of space to make the finished product, so you want to produce more raw materials. Where does the raw material go? To other countries so they can refine it and sell it back to us with a markup. That is what I call helping your donors, not solving the nations problems.

Finally, I will go back to a previous point. In all the reports of spills and leaks, there is nothing speaking about what damage the toxic substances do the environment or the wildlife. Why? I believe that it would cause major problems for the supporters of fossil fuels. It has been reported that it will take decades for the local wildlife and environment to revert back to the way it was for just a small spill. They are still finding that the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico from the Gulfwater Horizon is affecting the wildlife. That it has caused medical problems with people and has killed the ability of people in certain industries to make a living.

This project has the potential to cause major problems for the country. Running pipeline through agricultural land can cause problems for our food. It can cause tainted food that gets into the distribution network and all of a sudden, we have a major catastrophe on our hands. And the reason that we are taking this chance? For money, nothing more, nothing less. Who says that elections don't mean anything. The people that elected the GOP into power knew what they wanted and are going to eventually get it. So if you voted for the GOP, I hope you get what you wanted. If you don't like what the GOP is doing and decided not to vote, stop your bitching. You voted with your non-action. Hope you like what you get.

We Cannot Understand That The US Constitution Is Law Here In ND

On November 4th, the voters of North Dakota are ready to vote a constitutional amendment into their state constitution that contradicts the Supreme Court and their ruling in Roe v. Wade. Here is the Amendment that will pass here.

Constitutional Measure No. 1 (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4009, 2013 Session Laws, Ch. 519) This constitutional measure would create and enact a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution stating, “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”

It seems to me that when the Supreme Court goes with a ruling, that the states should say hey this is the law of the land. We should follow it and put our efforts towards other things. But of course, we can't.

So the law here in North Dakota, (which doesn't matter because of the Supreme Court finding that there is a fundamental right for a woman to have an abortion until such time that the fetus is viable), means that the fetus that has been grown into existence two days ago has the same rights as every human walking the state.  And of course, we have over 2,000 children in Foster Care each and every year here. But we cannot figure out how to get them into homes where they will stay with grown ups that love them and set a good example for them when they get out on their own. Let's not worry about those kids, let's worry about those embryos that may or may not get to grow into children and may or may not be raised by caring parents. Because if you listen to the news around here lately, you would think that the majority of parents are only out for their own self-gratification, not to watch out for their children.

I am tired of the culture wars that spring up all the time. I am tired of the divisiveness that come with fighting over moral issues. What works for one person does not work for another. Why do you think that the language of the Constitution is so vague? It is because the framers figured out that putting strict guidelines would only alienate people, not bring them together. And this Constitutional Measure will cause more divisiveness.  But I can also tell you that I will keep fighting to have the laws of the land followed and not changed by some people that have the might of their morals and virtue to change things. Especially if they are close-minded. Here is looking at you, the North Dakota State Government.

Religious Freedom Legislation And The Problems Ahead

Arizona missed an opportunity to become the 1st state in the union to openly discriminate against everybody who isn't a Christian and didn't follow the Bible, thanks to Jan Brewer's veto of the bill. SB 1062 would have been the first shot in the dividing of the country by religious sects. And we will get there. I am almost positive that the "Moral and Virtuous" Christians out there will figure out a state legislature and governor to roll over and get this passed in their state. Believe me, Arizona might be the one in the news, but there are other states out there that are thinking the exact same way as the people who pushed SB 1062. Although there will be nothing within the next month that will get passed, later this year, the ball starts rolling again in the states.

The Arizona debacle has stopped other states in their tracks. In Kansas, the Senate decided not to consider the bill. Of course, the House there had passed the measure. And I am sure that the Governor there would have signed it into law. I am ashamed that South Dakota had this legislation even considered. It was tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In Tennessee, the sponsor had withdrawn his support of the bill there. In Ohio, the bill put forth was withdrawn. In Georgia, they had one each for the Senate and the House. The Senate bill had been withdrawn. The House bill is proceeding but it won't get through the Senate even if it does pass the House. In Indiana, lawmakers abandoned a constitutional amendment that would have protected religious schools and charities from discrimination lawsuits. Utah tabled the resolution there.

Shamelessly Stolen From Twitter

I may not stop laughing until Thanksgiving after reading this comic.

A Rant About Opposition To The Affordable Healthcare Act

Cross-posted at An Angry Dakota Democrat

Over the past 30 years, every politician that has run for the White House, had a platform for reforming healthcare so that all Americans get adequate healthcare. So when President Obama used his political capital of his first term to pass the Affordable Care Act, which could conceivably give health care protection to millions of Americans who did not or could not afford protection before, I thought it was a good idea. After all, I thought, who would balk at the idea of holding people personally responsible for obtaining health insurance so the costs of most medical procedures would not come back on the rest of the population who have insurance but continue to see rates rise. Boy was I wrong. There was stiff resistance from Day 1.

Freedom in the Time of Healthcare

The other day I was standing in a long line at the cable company, and listening to the discussion in front of me. I couldn't be accused of eavesdropping, because there was no way I couldn't listen. The discussion was about Obamacare. I could tell as soon as I got in line behind them, because I heard the phrase "shoved down my throat." I'm so sick of that one. "This is the land of the free, why should I have to be forced to buy healthcare? I don't want that shoved down my throat." I guess he meant the medicine. I waited in line, hearing what else he had to say. "Premiums are going up, I don't even know if I can afford them. Do you know how long we'll have to wait under this new system? I don't want to be forced to buy insurance and would rather pay the penalty. They shouldn't make me." I decided I couldn't hold my tongue and jumped in as politely as I could.

"Premiums are going up, you say?" He looked and nodded. "Good thing that hasn't been happening all along, at several percentage points higher until a few years ago. I used to pay for a family plan about ten years ago. It was a good plan. My wife and I have one now, coverage not as good, but we are covered. It's more than twice what I paid ten years ago."

"Wow, that's a lot to pay a month." he said

 "It is. Income hasn't doubled over the same time period. It sucks. My wife spent five days in the hospital last month. The bill is into five figures, but we pay less than $300.00. If we didn't have insurance, we would have been screwed."

"I'm not sure what doctor you are using, but my wife has been having a lot of medical problems lately. I can count on one hand the times I got a same day appointment. I'm not sure what mythical land you live in where there are no wait times, but I'd like to live there. My wife has quite a rash that we showed to the doctor recently. She has an appointment for the dermatologist in November. When she needed a bunch of tests, the doctor sent us to the emergency room so we could do them right away. Normally it would have taken well over a week to get them, as well as the results."

"I get into my doctor pretty fast." he said. "But I live in a really small town."

The conversation ended with him mumbling about losing his freedom. What I wanted to say, but didn't was this: I understand you don't want to have to be forced to buy health insurance, and that's fine and all, but when you end up in the emergency room with a broken leg and can't afford it, it's not free. I pay for your unpaid medical bills. Me, and everyone else with insurance pays for it. No one asked me if I wanted to pay for it, I don't have a choice. It's factored into the rates. One could say that those of us with insurance are getting the uninsured's unpaid bills.  The uninsured, non-paying people are getting a 'free ride' and this just puts that to a stop. It is the rare snowflake indeed who goes their entire life without needing medical care.


I guess the 'freedom' he is losing is the freedom to go to the emergency room on my dime, as well as yours.

Nobody A Winner In The Aftermath Of Zimmerman Verdict

Let me put this out there. I thought that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. It isn't a popular opinion around my neck of the woods. Why do I think that? Because of his actions, an altercation was inevitable and he killed a minor. There should be no self-defense defense able to get around the fact that his actions led to the altercation. But that wasn't the judgement. The judgement is that he feared for his life after Trayvon Martin proved to be tougher in a fight. But that isn't the major point of this post. The major point of this post is the aftermath of this miscarriage of justice.

Christianity and GOP Rhetoric: An Unholy Union of Hypocrisy About Abortion

I need to rant about this for a minute. This really isn't about the faith of Christians. This is more about the hypocrisy of the Christian sect and the GOP in particular. Over the past couple of weeks, I have seen little blue and pink flags populating yards around town. They are particularly conspicuous on church lawns. Those little flags represent fetuses that have been aborted. GOP leaders here in North Dakota are supportive of this demonstration.

Now I am not going to argue that abortion should be legal or not. And I applaud people and organizations for standing up for what they believe in. However, I will take the Christian church to task for this show of their beliefs. I understand that abortion is not correct in the Christian faith. And they have every right to say that. The one thing that I wonder though, is when they are going to take a stand against the greed that is shown in America. Where is that demonstration going to be shown to the public. When is the stand against the death penalty going to appear on the lawns of churches around the country? Where are the little flags to promote the cause of helping children, for having families adopt those kids in foster care? The banners out in front of the doors asking for fairness and equality for all God's children, not just those that have the right skin or the influence where they live. I am waiting, but I don't think that I will see any of those things. Why? Because the majority of leadership in America's Christian Churches have drank the Republican Kool-Aid and have fallen in line with the ideology.

Besides, it shouldn't matter what the Christian faith says about abortion, just like it shouldn't matter what it says about gay marriage. Here is what the 14th Amendment says about American citizenship:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here is where the conservative theology runs contrary to their rhetoric. According to their vision of America, we need to follow the constitution. I believe that as well, so the 14th Amendment says that when a baby is born, they become an American citizen when born on American soil. Until that baby, embryo, zygote, or whatever you want to call that thing in a woman's lower torso for 9 months is born, it does not have protection as an American citizen according to the Constitution or current American laws. And for the argument that science has changed and our knowledge of human anatomy and biology has increased dramatically since the 14th Amendment was passed, it does not matter. Just as the 2nd Amendment is ironclad according to conservatives even when science has changed the weapons and kill rates that are inflicted, so it goes towards the embryo that the woman carries. Another GOP do as I want and don't worry about what the law says topic, apparently. Instead of trying to get the constitution changed, they are trying to short-cut the law making process just like gay marriage and not follow what it says in the constitution.

In the end, the GOP is working hard as hell to get abortion outlawed in the states. They are using their allies in Christianity to help them. No matter what the GOP says, they are still using the Culture Wars to try and win elections. They know that is the only thing that they can use to win elections. Because if they try to win on the economy, reason, or jobs, pretty soon they will become an endangered species and then Christian churches will have their influence wane. We can't have that. After all, having Pat Robertson and Ted Haggert out there preaching to us that the conservative way is the right way helps keep the GOP looney and America divided about everything. Nothing like helping our enemies in the world, right GOP?

Guns, America, and Stupidity

In the latest issue of Sports Illustrated, there was an article about Frank Hall, the football assistant that limited a school shooting to 3 dead and three others injured. I became teary-eyed reading about what he did and the difficulties that he had after that day. I also was teary-eyed because of my selfishness. I had forgotten all about Chadron, Ohio. How do you forget a news story about a teenager killing three people in school?  The sad thing is that I am not alone. I would bet that 99% of Americans forgot that fateful day. Why? Because our civilization doesn't care.

This is the ending of the 10 pages devoted to this story by Gary Smith:

Two months after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, Rob Cox - the cofounder of a nonprofit formed in Newtown to help it heal - was leafing through a dozen boxes containing thousands of cards and letters that had poured in from around the world. He came upon one from Chadron, offering encouragement and details of what had happened there, and he was mortified.

He went around Newtown, asking neighbors and friends, but their responses were all exactly what his had been. Chadron? No trace in their memories of that town or school. No trace of a shooting there just 9 1/2 months before their own. No memory of a football coach saving his school from a slaughter far worse than it might have been.

Which meant the clock was already ticking in the land of amnesia. How long before Newtown, too, was gone?

In 2014, Newtown will have been forgotten my most of us. You say that isn't possible. But it is. Columbine doesn't have the same horrific visions as it did just 5 years ago. How about Oikos University? Do you remember that shooting? Did you even hear about it? I know that I didn't. I am sure that you didn't know that there have been 74 school shootings since January 1, 2000.  147 people have died in those shootings.

If you listen to the NRA, the way to lessen those numbers is to allow everybody to have weapons in schools. Never mind that the amount of deaths attributable to shootings in the United States during that same time period is approximately 375,000. The number of shootings during that time is estimated at over 2 Million. And according to our U.S. Congressman, Kevin Cramer in the House from North Dakota, the reason that we have school shootings is legalized abortion. Well, I think that his solution to the problem is just as bad as the NRA's.

The reason that I bring this all up? It is amazing that both Democrats and Republicans cannot come to some agreement to try and prevent the five shootings at school that happen on average each and every year since 2000. We have seen that Washington will not listen to the public. Some sort of gun control is needed. And don't tell me about the 2nd Amendment. The thought that all weapons should be available to anybody didn't come into the consciousness of the American Court system until a court in Georgia back in the 1830's said that the 2nd Amendment meant that a person could own any weapon that they wanted. Seems like that isn't a Founding Father declaration there.

It is time for the adults of both side of the political spectrum to come together and come to some sort of agreement on firearms. Let's see why a person needs a semi-automatic weapon besides in a theater of war. Let's agree that shotguns, pistols, and rifles are needed by people and should not be regulated. But there needs to be a conversation that is rational where the NRA, Kevin Cramer, and the No Weapon Coalition are not invited. Maybe, just maybe a civil discussion and following the public opinion on firearms will cause a small ratcheting down of the partisan rhetoric in American politcs.

My Case For Same-Sex Marriage

In 1974, the Supreme Court said in the Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur court case that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.”  If that is a fact, and it is, then marriage equality for homosexuals should already be recognized.

Arguments of the Crusaders against same-sex marriage do not stand up to scrutiny if you think about it. The tradition of marriage is a farce.  The traditional marriage supporters say that marriage has been between a man and a woman for 2,000 years. Then why did the Catholic Church argue against a white man marrying a non-white woman in the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving vs. Virginia? In that case, the court said “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man.”

There is the thought that a marriage is for the procreation and raising of a family. But if that is the reason why marriage is allowed, why do we as a society allow those who are unable to have children to marry? Why do we allow senior citizens to marry? They aren’t going to procreate and be able to raise a family. Also, science has become advanced enough that a woman does not need to have sex with a man to have a child. And if the goal of marriage is to raise a family, why do we allow people to get divorced if they have kids? I believe that a loving same-sex couple that is married is a better situation for children than a divorced couple. Also, how is it that people would say that a heterosexual that has been engaged in crimes against society would make for a better parent than a homosexual person that has never committed those types of atrocities against society.

The argument that angers me the most by anti-same-sex marriage crusaders is the one that the majority of people that molest children are gay people. Their conclusion is that gay people who get married and have children are more likely to molest those children. In a Pediatrics ’94 Journal article, Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period, from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases.

Let’s examine why same-sex marriage should be allowed. Allowing same-sex marriage would stop the discrimination of people’s basic civil rights, strengthen the institution of marriage and society, and allow for what was not seen as an abomination by the Lord.

In 1989, Denmark allowed for domestic partnerships.  72% of the Danish clergy argued that it was a bad idea. A survey of the Danish clergy in 1995 found that 89% of the Danish clergy admitted that the law was a good thing. It included a reduction in suicide, sexually transmitted diseases and promiscuity and infidelity among gay people. This “experiment” shows that same-sex marriage could have the result in strengthening not just the institution of marriage, but to the society as a whole. In 2010, Denmark passed a law saying that gay and heterosexual marriages were the same in the eyes of the law.

An experiment at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm Sweden which is part of the National Academy of Sciences found in brain scans that key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness are alike in gay people of one sex and heterosexual people of the other sex. The fact that it is a physiological difference between being gay or straight means that not allowing the fundamental right to marry is purely discriminatory. It is the 21^st century form of racial discrimination.  

The biggest reason for my belief in why Gay Marriage should be legal is the Bible and the relationship that Jonathan and David had. “And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law a second time.” (I Samuel 18:21, English Revised Version)

Saul had three children. Merab the eldest daughter, Jonathan, Saul’s son, and Michal, the youngest daughter. David was never married to Merab. The Bible says that David and Michal did marry. So that leaves a marriage between David and Jonathan that was acknowledged by Saul. That means that David, who is in the bloodline of Jesus Christ, became the King of Israel and did the Lord’s bidding had a relationship that was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. That doesn’t make any sense in a Biblical sense because according to the Bible, the Lord would have seen David's relationship with Jonathan as an abomination and would have killed David. Israel would have lost the greatest king that it ever had and the promise of the Israelites would not have come to pass. So either God is a hypocrite in the homosexual way of life or man changed the Bible to cause the act of homosexuality to be taboo. We can't determine which one it is because we don't have the original transcripts. I tend to be on the side of human interference in the Bible because according to a Professor of Religious Studies at UNC@Chapel Hill, we have over 700 bibles written in Ancient Greece that scholars can study and no two say the same thing throughout the texts.How does that happen? Human interference.

Since freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause, gay marriage is a human right. The grand experiment of America demands that equal natural rights to be obtained by everyone, not just heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter what Christianity or any other religion says. Same-sex marriage should be the law of the land. And before everybody says that it is a states rights issue, look at the constitution. All states are supposed to recognize the licenses and contracts between people of another state. So even here in Deep Red North Dakota, we are supposed to recognize the gay marriages that are performed in Vermont, Iowa, Washington, Minnesota in August and hopefully soon in Illinois. Following the Constitution is what everybody on the right says they want. Well, let's see if that is true.

Irony of Ironies in the Gun Control Debate

"American Sniper" author Chris Kyle shot dead in Texas

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21313208

(STORY: 3 Feb 2013 -- Iraq veteran and ex-US Navy seal Chris Kyle, known as the deadliest sniper in US history, has been shot dead on a Texas shooting range, reports say. His body was found at Rough Creek Lodge range on Saturday with that of another man. Mr. Kyle, 38, wrote the 2012 bestseller "American Sniper," about the psychology of a sniper, in which he said that he had killed more than 250 people.)

I find this story ironic (and apropos) because I'm currently in a fairly intense FB "discussion" on the topic of gun control (not your discussion, Lawrence Ross, another one). My friend's point is--guns, themselves, are not inherently evil (I agree), they have a constructive utility and they shouldn't be demonized as merely tools of destruction (I disagree). One of the ironies of this story is Mr. Kyle, the victim, made a prolific, unashamed living with a gun, justifiably killing people (a LOT of people) in
combat, and while in the act of using his gun, presumably for recreation (on a shooting range), he's murdered by a man using that same recreational "tool."

The opponents of my viewpoint will likely NOW argue that the perpetrator was a criminal--an example that more gun control is superfluous and doesn't prevent any kind of crime...or rage, or suicide, or accidents. Maybe he's right, but I'd give you 10 to 1 odds that before Chris Kyle's killer pulled the trigger and made himself a murderer, he was an otherwise law-abiding, accountable, licensed, and trained gun owner--the model of the kind of responsible owner that we paranoid "gun controlist" shouldn't be concerned about. It's the "other guy"--the criminal, that should worry us.
It's ironic (and perhaps convenient to the "right's" argument) that the people who commit these kinds of gun crimes aren't themselves criminals UNTIL they unlawfully pull the trigger! This guy became the "other guy!"

I was once told that gun control is not about the gun, it's about the "control." (Uh, yeah--isn't that the point?) It's perpetually argued that we (America) need [more] guns to protect us from the kind of people who murdered Mr. Kyle. I find it disconcertingly tragic that Chris, finding himself on a shooting range, presumably armed with his own gun, wasn't able to prove that theory right. I wonder if they'll now hire armed guards to guard shooting ranges! How ironic!

I agree with the NRA: Guns don't kill people; people kill people....with guns!

NRA

Other than the fact this little picture doesn't address the line in the Second Amendment that says "the people," meaning a plurality not the individual, this hits home pretty well.

A Reflection on the 2012 Presidential Election

This being Veterans Day, I'd like to share one of my favorite Marine Corps boot camp stories. On the third day, we were introduced to our Drill Instructors. The recruits sat on the floor with their knees in their chests, eyeballs glued to the drill instructors as they introduced themselves, one by one. One guy, a Sergeant, came out and started talking about how, in the Marine Corps, there were no "black" Marines, or "white" Marines--we were all just MARINES! This was 1980, the country still identified itself along race lines on many topics--the Supreme Court's Bakke decision was still fresh on everyone's tongue. I'm thinking: "Wow, this is great! No distinctions, no prejudice, just a bunch of Marines! Great!" Then the next thing from his lips was: "We're just 'light-green' Marines and 'dark-green' Marines!"   (SMH!!)   Oh well, so much for that experiment!

I wrote earlier that on Election Day, it took close to four hours to cast my ballot, the longest I've ever taken to vote in any Presidential election I've participated in. Right after the balloting, I posted a few observations from my "eternity" standing in the polling line--some were sincere, some are kinda snarky.

When we got home (a little after 10:00 p.m.), my wife and I didn't have to wait long for the election results, "Uncle Baama" (as one little kid, waiting in line with his dad, kept referring to President Obama) had won easily. In the days prior to November 6, many of my Black friends would send email messages and Facebook pokes about the importance of voting, and often included video clips or photos reminding folks my age (55+) of the dark days of segregation and the fight for voter rights in the South. The emails would be very blunt about how important it was to vote in this election (re-electing Obama) because the "fear" or implied "threat" was we (Blacks) would be forced, by hooded (and un-hooded) thugs, back down the road to the good old days of Sheriff Bull Connor's fire hoses and police dogs, tear gas, warrantless arrests, church bombings, picnic lynchings, and out right murder! The implication was, as Blacks, we had an OBLIGATION to vote to prevent American from again sinking into that abyss. Quite frankly, I was a little offended by the heavy-handed imagery of those messages, mainly because I'm convinced that America has long ago turned the corner on that kind of overt, blatant, institutionalized racial prejudice, bigotry, and race hatred.  I want to believe we are past that.  Sure, there are individuals out there who will always think in those terms, but that's not the majority of Americans, and I did not believe that's where Romney or the GOP were trying to take us this year.   There was no need for concern that if you didn't vote for Obama in 2012, that America would backslide to its days of apartheid.

But I'll be damned if, during the coverage of the election results, many news anchors, guests, and so-called "political experts" (especially on Fox News) weren't actually blaming Romney's loss on race! These people were actually upset that "minorities" had the temerity and the gall vote in the manner and number that they did! I couldn't believe my ears that by voting, we (minorities) were to "blame" for Romney's loss. These clowns were saying crap like:

      - "...the white establishment is now the minority..."

      - "...it's not a 'traditional' America anymore..."

      - "...this is the new America; this isn't your father's America anymore..."

WTF!!   I could not believe I was hearing this!!  Is this America?!?   The thing that saddened and (and pissed me off) the most is the fact that when I look back on it in retrospect, both sides willfully played the race card. It seems no matter what we do or say as a nation, in the end, it all comes down to race! (damnit...) When the heat is turned up, someone's going to shout or whisper or insinuate the "N" word, or the "C" word, or the "S" word, or the "J" word.  The funny thing is, when I was standing in that voting line, there was one other thing I observed that didn't impress me enough to note, and that was the colors of the people standing around me. I was surrounded by people of all colors, races, nationalities, languages, and creeds--a nice "stew" of Americanism.  To keep my legs from going numb, I walked up and down the line just watching folks with my ears falling on this or that conversation. There were whites, blacks, Indians, Asians, Hispanics (or is that "Latinos?"), Arabs, a Russian couple, Africans--it just seemed like "people" to me. It never dawned on me that we were still "black and white" and "minorities and majorities." After listening to the jerks on Fox News, I don't think I want to see a "traditional" America again, but I guess we are "light-green" and "dark-green" Americans.

 

Pity!

An Example Of Why I Am Not A Republican

The following picture is from a member of the Romney Clan.  And I hope that whoever thinks that this is appropriate burns in hell for using our Ambassador's death in a politically crass usage such as this:

Ronna Romney, I hope that you never have to bury someone close to you because they are murdered.  This is because you might decide that you need more blood and use their death for political purposes or you just decide that you like the taste of it, sort of like Dracula.  I have both middle fingers up to the Republican Party for shit like this!

"I'm Mitt Romney, bitches, and I'm all you got left"

This is one of the best, and funniest, pieces I've seen written in a very long time.  It takes someone with the wit and balls of Charlie Pierce to pull it off.  If you don't read Charlie, well you should.  I see his stuff on my FB wall from Esquire.  I'm still LMAO at certain pieces, like the following:

"You think I'm worried that a bunch of cheap suits with BlackBerries are talking smack about me to some political fanzine? Do you think I'm concerned about the good opinion of a bunch of people that we'd have had pushing the snack cart around the sales floor at Bain? Do you think I care about the national ambitions of that zombie-eyed granny starver I put on the ticket? That guy really thinks I mean all that stuff about opportunity and free enterprise. You know what's free about free enterprise? No, you don't, fools, because you... don't... speak... Money. I do, and, well:
I'm Mitt Romney, bitches, and I'm all you got left."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-speech-after-secret-tape-12824014#ixzz26rui54Hs

So I really encourage you to read Charlie on a regular basis and I'll live you with this additional teaser:  "Put me on a podium in front of an auditorium full of mouthbreathers I wouldn't hire to park my car and I turn into an ice sculpture. But put me in a room with sentient piles of currency"...

And I wanted to share this great political cartoon:

He Said It

"The Democratic Party promises groups of people everything, They want the Hispanic vote, they want Hispanics to be dependent on government, just like they got African Americans dependent on government. That's their game." – Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), during a recent speech in Schaumberg, IL.

I don’t want either Democrats or Republicans to make me dependent on government. I want them to create jobs, and not just the entry-level paying ones that continue to create a deeper chasm between the haves and have nots. I want them to help create ones that pay more so we once again have a thriving middle class.

And what about Joe Walsh’s kids? Since he still hasn’t paid his child support, how are his kids getting by?

The Obama Administration Stirs Up A Hornet's Nest In Declaration That The President Supports Gay Marriage

This is a picture that I put up on my facebook page about 6 months ago.  It is what I believe.  I have gay and lesbian friends.  And it doesn’t seem right to me that something that I believe is genetically decided should be the cause of them not being married.  Well, apparently the North Carolina Constitutional Amendment passing by 20 points has prodded President Obama to publicly support gay marriage.  And that is fine by me.  He needs to come out and tell the public what he believes.  And if the people that don’t believe that gay marriage should be legal because of religious views, then they can criticize all they want, but I don’t see them clamoring to follow the laws set out in the bible.  So that argument seems a little hypocritical to me.  Anyways, here is the transcript for President Obama’s proclamation that he supports gay marriage:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” he told ABC.

This announcement is a game-changing event in the election of 2012.  Will it hurt or help?  Only time will tell.  But there is one fact that you cannot deny.  Gay marriage is becoming more accepted in America and that at some point in the future, Gay marriage will become the law of the land.  It might not be the next 10 or 20 years, but I would predict within the next 40 years, the anti-gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments passed by many states will become null and void because of Federal statues that say that two people, no matter what sex they are have the right to marry.  And at some point in the future, our descendents will look back at the fights around gay marriage and say that we have evolved and are happy that such backward thinking isn’t around anymore.  Sort of like us and slavery.  Anyways, the next 6 months should be more interesting just because of this announcement.

Cross-posted at An Angry Dakota Democrat

But They’re Just Like Us, Right?

Do you have $990? I don’t need it but if I want to keep up with middle class people like Ann & Mitt Romney I need to buy a $990 Reed Krakoff Audubon silk t-shirt or it’s equivalent.

I don’t care if the t-shirt was donated to the Romney campaign or if Ann actually bought it. I find it insulting when a candidate tries to identify with the middle class and then wears a t-shirt that costs almost as much as my rent.

But don’t blame the Romneys for their latest faux pas. They’re just middle class people like us, right? [/sarcasm]

He Said It

I’d give you the direct quote but it’s better for you to view this video uploaded to YouTube by San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, who not only announced he’s leaving the GOP but is embracing his Independence.

Unlike most Republicans running for office, Fletcher served in the military. He also supported ending DADT, which automatically makes him too liberal for the GOP.

San Diego deserves better than the same partisan bullsh*t from the likes of Bob Filner and Carl DeMaio. Fletcher’s currently tied for third place in recent polls, but this move and his track record might give him the boost his candidacy needs.

In the open primary only the top two candidates face off in November. I hope Fletcher is one of them.

He Tweeted It

Rush - As soon as u started losing the big $$ from your hate speech, you caved & obeyed the men who pay u. Who's the prostitute now, bitch? –Michael Moore, via Twitter, March 3, 2012.

I have no comment. I can’t stop laughing!