House to Sue the Prez…(We the People, Still Ignored)

Talking Points Memo Headline: 

House Votes To Sue President For The First Time In History

Here’s a purely rhetorical question, because it makes too much common sense for the government to actually acknowledge the hypocrisy and give us a direct, non-convoluted answer:

WE the people– the constituents– can’t sue the government:

“Sovereign immunity has carried over to modern times in the form of a general rule that you cannot sue the government — unless the government says you can.” (source)

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.  (Wikipedia)

Well, these douchebags would never consent to us suing the collective pants off of them, (I mean, these are the same guys who get to vote on their own paychecks)  but they can sue the President? Doesn’t he get “sovereign immunity?”  Well, Congress, especially the Republican party, has done their best to block his every move in regards to this healthcare debacle anyway.  But regardless of whether or not you support the healthcare bill, these jokers in Congress do not have best interests of the majority of their constituents in mind.  (Those interests were already bought and paid for by the lobbyists and 1%.)

I call bullshit.  I think the whole lot of them should be kicked out on their overpaid keisters.  Or maybe the President can counter-sue for Treason.  The whole congressional process is a is a fucking joke now anyhow.

*grumble grumble*  I’m going to go eat some damn ice cream now.

 

Freedom of STFU

“Freedom of Speech” is being thrown around a lot these days.  Much like the art of growing our own food, drawing our own water from wells, living without electricity, we as a nation seem to have forgotten what it really means.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances…

Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states…

Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. … Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. (source)

 

I’m already sick to death of Phil Robertson.  Actually, I was sick of it before this even happened.  I can’t go out to a store without seeing the Robertson family members plastered all over everything, the latest merchandising craze.  I don’t watch the show.  I don’t really want to.  I don’t usually do reality shows.  I have my own reality to live, and kind of resent that some people actually get paid to live theirs and act like fools on national TV.

In regards to this instance: No one’s Freedom of Speech was infringed. Phil wasn’t fined, jailed, or shot by his government for expressing his political views. He was “suspended” from his job…same as you would be if you went into work and started talking smack about gays (unless of course, you live in KY…then it’s apparently encouraged in some places. lol) He’s a public figure who knows damn well whatever he says in an interview will reflect on his family and business.

As this topic of “free speech” pertains to the “war on Christmas,” politics, religion, sexuality, and all the other over-sensitive bullshit out there…

Could both sides please just stop being so self-righteous and primed for a fight over everything?    We’re a nation of whiny pansies now, but the gov’t ROUTINELY rewards the whiners with won lawsuits and ridiculous court decisions.  What happened to common sense and common courtesy when it comes to voicing your opinion or hearing someone else’s? Yes, you can feel how you feel, but do you need to be a dick about it and broadcast it all the time?  The bottom line is this:

We teach our children this very simple concept many adults seem to have forgotten: Just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD!

I would like to put forth a new amendment for consideration: The Freedom of Shut The Fuck Up!  Go out and vote now!

When Chuck says it, by God, you DO IT!

(PS: Sorry if I sound overly “ranty” or “angry.”   I think I need to get off Facebook for a while.  It just makes me angry seeing ignorance and intolerance all over the place, and from people I thought I knew better.)

A word on tolerance…

A friend of mine made an eloquent point on Facebook today (how’s that for irony; eloquence on Facebook!)

HE said:

Don’t be intolerant of my conservatism and ask me to be tolerant of your liberalism.

While I do agree with this, especially in light of the whole Phil Robertson debacle, my take on it is this:

I personally do not feel I am intolerant of conservatism, so much as I am intolerant of the almost compulsive need many conservatives  have to try to legislate their beliefs. In other words, it’s not enough for them to live by their own beliefs and rules; they want make their rules apply to everyone. I mean, for instance, if liberal policy allows gays to marry, a conservative does not need to “be gay” and/or get married if they don’t agree with it.  A liberal will not try to pass a law forcing a straight person to get “gay married.”  However, conversely, many conservatives feel the need to actually try to keep OTHERS from getting married and living the life they want…. See what I mean?

Also, as pertains to Phil, I do feel sorta bad he got fired. CQ essentially laid a trap by asking him questions to which they already knew the answer, and A & E then punished him for his honest opinion.  Personally, I think A & E has hitherto cashed in on the brash, unapologetic nature of the Robertson family, only now distancing themselves when it becomes too “controversial.”   That said, Phil should have know better.  The best answers to questions like the one he was asked are usually as short as possible.  Admittedly I do not watch the show; I’ve heard about it and had little desire to see one more reality show where people are rewarded with fame and money for acting like dicks, and Robertson’s remarks just seem to validate my decision to skip this particular show.

Open mouth, insert duck call…

Grammar Police: Acceptable vs. Non-acceptable Ignorance

If I posted a status on Facebook claiming that there were 52 states in the US or that 2+2=7, people would in all likelihood not only correct me, but also lambaste the shit out of me for being so ignorant.

And yet, it’s considered passe, annoying, and even rude to correct improper grammar.  People like myself* me are often referred to as “grammar nazis,” as if preferring people use correct English, which we were supposed to have learned in school, is something about which to be embarrassed.

Aside from wanting to grind my teeth into dust when I see people who should know better mix up “your” and “you’re,”  the educational and social double standard that this is somehow acceptable annoys the piss out of me.  These same people who complain about grammar nazis are likely also complaining about the “state of education” in the country.  I’m just sayin’…

It’s not like these rules are arbitrary.  To me, the fact that “you” and “are” can combine to make “you’re” and that word’s meaning is completely different from “your” does not seem to be an impossible or nonsensical concept.  I’m really not even trying to rag on people who make this mistake (I even do it sometimes if my brain is moving faster than my fingers can type.)  It just annoys me that there seems to be some sort of double standard where, once out of high school, English is regarded as Math/Geography/[fill in blank with subject]’s bastard red-headed stepchild.  I’m not even talking about people needing to know every obscure rule of grammar there is;  I’m talking very basic grammar here.

No one loves a grammar nazi…except maybe another grammar nazi…

Well, I know all this bitching won’t do anything to change anything.  We grammar nazis are routinely ignored.  But I figured that at the very least, I could get a blog post out of it, and we could all enjoy some grammar memes.   Oh noes.  I’m a… “grammar nerd!”

I was actually THINKING this last night….

No one is feeling MY nuts!

You all just better watch your step! Liam is serious.

*Thanks to Louise for pointing out even Grammar Nazis make mistakes. 😀

Eff you, and your righteous indignation…

Man…there are so many hateful people in this world.  I am really starting to hate Facebook for making me so aware of it.  People like to blame all sorts of groups for “the state of the country…”  The Republicans, the Democrats, (Libs and Conservatives), the poor, the blacks, the whites, the illegals…  There is very little left of sympathy or empathy or the milk of human kindness.  SO many people only care about themselves and how things affect them.

The government just cut food stamps…again.  And the house endorsed and extra $500 million in aid to Israel…for missile systems!!!

Could someone tell me why so many people in this country hate our own poor, disdain giving them any help or money because they think it’s just the poor being “lazy” and the gov’t “enabling” them…?

But we can send a shit ton of money to other countries?  Oh, I bet I can…  Because somehow the House sees the money sent to Israel for weapons as a better “investment” than money spent on their own people.

Are we all so busy hating each other, blaming each other (damn lazy poor people,) that we can’t see the gov’t is the one sucking up all our money, screwing up our lives?

Facebook and the internet is really making me start to hate people…worse than I already did.   By all means, let’s cut SNAP aid and welfare money to the US poor….by, dear GOD, don’t let the Panda Cam go offline!!!

“Fuck you, poor person. We wanna see Pandas.”

No. Just…No.

This is one of the gems making the rounds on Facebook right now… (and by “gems,” I really mean ignorant, entitled bullshit…)

I find it amusing that hundreds of thousands of federal employees just got an unrequested “vacation” without pay because Congress couldn’t get their shit together, and STILL, everyone, including other middle class Americans, are still focusing on blaming the poor people in America.

(I’ve written about this before, and anyone interested in actual facts can check out that link…)

Or, if facts don’t really matter much, I’ll leave you with this little ode to misrepresentation and straight up lies. (I’ll reprint the caption that’s tagging along with this particular incarnation of an old pic, but please, don’t hold me responsible for the dumbassery…)

“What the hell is this… A picture is worth a thousand words. SOMEONE WAS AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME WITH A CAMERA. IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS FURIOUS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA AND IT WAS PUBLISHED AND TRIED TO BLOCK IT. The name of the book Obama is holding is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria) “Post” America means: The World “After” America !” If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, In three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one photo that really should be passed around.”

‘Kay, guys…  I hope no one ever post pix of the stuff I read for entertainment!

Also…Obama is Christian…

Also…ah fuck it…  http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/postamerican.asp

G*ddammit, just STOP it already!

The above title could refer either to my need to check comments and notifications on Huffington Post, (where some moron has inevitably said something too dumb to ignore, or purposely picked a fight with me) OR it could, and DOES, refer to how very fucking tired I am of seeing all the race (and sex) hate online.  I sometimes wish I could go back in time to when I did not have constant internet access, and hence, was not nearly as aware of all the horrible things going on in the world, and subsequently, the horribly misguided and moronic responses of scared and ignorant people.  I’ll admit, I’m scared too.  I have a child, and my fear for her safety and happiness is all encompassing; no matter how vigilant you are, you can not protect against the senseless and amoral.

So, I’m scared.  But I’m also pissed!  I need to get off Facebook and the internet news for a while, because if I see one more person blame Obama for all the woes in this country and then support it with inaccurate “factoids” they picked up somewhere I might just explode.  If I see one more forwarded article posted by one of my Facebook friends whining about “why does Trayvon get all this attention but black on white crime goes unobserved?” I might just throat punch someone.

I have noticed an increase in my own political posts and replies in an attempt to combat all the rampant ignorance going around, and frankly, to some people, I am probably becoming one of those political posters that annoy me!!!  I don’t want to be that person… because it doesn’t do any good anyway.  It seems like most people either agree with your views or disagree.  If they agree, you haven’t really “enlightened” anyone.  And it feels like most people that disagree are loath to make room in their personal philosophies to consider any new info on the topic.

But back to the race thing, which is what today’s post is about… I ask you… I BEG you…

[Some**] black people… please stop threatening to riot when shit doesn’t go your way.  It doesn’t do anything to help your cause.  It’s basically like trying to bully people into action by threatening violence.

[Some**] white people… please stop playing the whole “reverse” racism card.  You are not helping “spread awareness” about the perceived plight of white people.  You just sound like a toddler whining, “it’s not faaaair…”

It’s bad enough there are still people who are comfortable being openly racist, basically acting like a bunch of uneducated hillbillies, but the rest of us, who think we’re “fighting for the underdog” or standing up for our rights are not helping.  Some people claim Obama is trying to divide the races.  Let me tell you, he doesn’t need to.  We do it all on our own.  And to me, the barely veiled racism of today is in some ways just as bad as the racism of yesteryear.  Passive aggressive, misguided…

Yes, both sides (and believe it or not, there are more races in America now besides black and white) are still seeing instances of inequality.  Both sides have victims.  Both sides have perpetrators.  The problem is not black and white.  When the race of a perpetrator is mentioned in the title of an article, unless there is specific evidence the crime was racially motivated, to me that’s a red flag.  That’s propagating hate.  And then if you go to the comments section of just about any news outlet online, someone will inevitably find a way to dredge up and grandstand on their particular beliefs, whether said beliefs have anything to do with the article or not.

So if you want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, for the love of God, or whoever, just stop with the “righteous indignation” and forwarded crap about race crimes…on both sides!!!  Isn’t people killing people bad enough???

okay…end rant…have to go mop up my brains…

(ps…and a note to myself…  JUST STOP ALREADY! Stop letting morons you don’t even know piss you off.  Stop posting political stuff on Facebook or being bated by others’ political posts. Slactivism is not activism, so.  Just.  Stop.)

**If it’s not already obvious, I qualify these statements with the word “some,” because I would never dream of impugning a whole group of people based on the actions of only some.  However, it’s apparent to me that the number of people spouting the nonsense have enough of a voice that they are still causing trouble.

We the Underdogs: Capitalism and Democracy

I think most of America’s problems stem from two things.

Firstly, we are supposedly a capitalist country and democratic republic.  And yet, it seems as if capitalism and democracy, by their very nature, are diametrically opposed. Until the people that are supposed to represent us stop taking campaign money from business lobbyists and religious organizations, we can never hope to realize the freedoms we thought our constitution protected.

Capitalism is (supposedly/ideally) is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.(source)

Closer to the truth of the matter, yet still idealistic, may be the Wikipedia definition:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital assets and goods. In a capitalist economy, investors are free to buy, sell, produce, and distribute goods and services with at most limited government control, at prices determined primarily by a competition for profit in a free market. Central elements of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.

What capitalism seems to mean in America now, though, is closer to Jafar’s idea of the golden rule:

It feels like everything is crony capitalism,

I found it rather interesting (in a sad and ironic way) how Ayn Rand described capitalism.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

That’s all swell, but we really don’t have separation of church and state either. But this will never stop until politicians are disallowed from taking campaign money from lobbyists and churches. Until that happens, politicians will always be more influenced by what their contributors want then by what the people want.  Some people debate the meaning of the “separation of church and state” mentioned in constitution.  Some people, myself included, feel that parts of the constitution are obsolete. Sacrilege!  But I do wonder, how “ironclad” can it be if it can be “amended” so much?  I think regardless of what was intended then, I think today one can not write legislation for a whole country based on one religion, and with many politicians in the church’s pocket, that’s pretty much exactly what’s happening (think about how they’re trying to jam prayer back into school and force women’s reproductive rights issues.)

Anyway, it’s my opinion…my belief…that between the capitalism that keeps the poor poor–

Attempts at eliminating minimum wage and claiming it will “help” the poor (one can only guess at the ass backwards logic behind that one).  Forcing taxpayers to subsidize their profits by footing the bill for all the Walmart employees  on welfare or food stamps as a result of their pitifully inadequate wages, and let’s not forget the government bailing out Big Business–

–and the religious conservatives bent on forcing us all to follow their rules and code of morality through legislation (lobbyists giving money to influence representatives…and here money comes into play again) the majority of America is in a stranglehold.  Basically, if we’re not CEOs of the gas companies, we’re the schmucks who pay 3.69 a gallon because we have no real recourse.  After all,  our representatives’ campaigns are probably being financed by the gas company.  This is a very simplistic generalization, but you see what I’m getting at, and I am not the only person who feels the weight of being low man on the totem…    

Let me finish up by leaving you with another Ayn Rand quote to think on:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.

Yup…we’re doomed.

Related articles

• Why I don’t agree with laissez-faire (aquariuswolf.wordpress.com)
• Don’t Confuse Free Market Capitalism with Crony Capitalism (yevala.com)
• http://appalachianconservative.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/ayn-rand-quotes-on-capitalism-government-and-liberty/

One Nation, 313.9 Million Opinions….

I’ve been embroiled in a pretty irritating (and endlessly ongoing) debate on social media lately, especially amid all the DOMA stuff and rampant, misinformed patriotism going on…

“One nation UNDER GOD!”  ‘Murica!

Was our nation founded on “biblical” ideas, or the idea of religious freedom?

As I research, it seems there are conflicting ideas at work even as the country was founded.  According to some sources, the country was founded by settlers fleeing the “tyranny” of the Church of England, for the purpose of being free to worship God how they felt fit.  SO in that sense, you could say the US was founded on biblical beliefs…

And yet, in OUR CONSTITUTION, it expressly states that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; […]and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Apparently, the word “Christianity” does not appear in the constitution.  Now, I’m not sure about the word “bible.”  But when it comes to the constitution, a lot of people (conservatives…eek!)  are especially fond of quoting the part about the right to bear arms, but not so interested in upholding the “no law respecting an establishment of religion” part.

To word the initial question in a different way… was this country founded on religious freedom, or merely the “freedom” to be Christian?

And apparently the sad truth is that some states have constitutions that forbid atheists from holding public offices.  You have to declare at least a belief in God.  This seems to be in direct contrast to the  idea of separation of church and state posed at the federal level, and while I admit a fairly rudimentary knowledge of politics, it’s been ingrained in my head since grade school that the states were not supposed to pass any laws that violated federal law.  Somehow, there are many laws today that get around that somehow.

What I don’t understand is why it’s so difficult for anybody to just leave others alone.  Still there are some people that insist this country is going to shit simply because things are not being done their way, whether that be with religion infused into everything or because gay people are allowed to marry, or…whatever!

Now, I had been requested by a close friend to “research” this further before rendering an opinion.  While I don’t have hours to go through the constitution line by line right now, I’ll admit there seems to be conflicting ideas as to what this country is founded on, depending on where you look.  But… what I am not conflicted on is the idea that people have “adapted” both the constitution and the Bible to fit more into their modern lives.  Whether it be gun laws, laws and mores governing divorce, the use of birth control, etc, there are may passages that are interpreted only “loosely” or in a way that is more palatable to the morals we’ve actually internalized.  My point is, while either or both of these texts might be good guidelines for how to live your life, as society and the human species changes, ideas need to change with it.  For instance, the ideas of continuation of species, identification of parentage , reproductive survival, etc, may have been served better at one time by the ideas of marriage as between “one man ad one woman.”  Historically speaking:

In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage. But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. “In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition. (wikipedia)

But now that model is not nearly as relevant, in an over-populated world where reproductive technology allows even single or infertile people to have children if they want.

Please don’t take this as an attack on religion.  While I do not personally ascribe to any, I would not deny someone else their beliefs. But for the love of God (see what I did there? ) stop trying to use it to write or keep laws for a nation that is not any one religion!  There are 313 million people in the US, and they don’t all think like you.  The real idea behind America is supposed to be that they don’t have to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-meyerson/religious-freedom-in-americas-founding-moments-_b_1632067.html

 

EDIT: 7/18/13  This clears things up some, for me anyway.  http://inphasemag.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/separation-of-church-and-state-is-in-the-constitution/comment-page-1/

No Disrespect But…To Be Honest…

A lot of people like to think they know other people, that they’re adept at detecting deception and above being fooled.  I always cringe when people recite that drivel about how people’s eyes move “up and to the right” for the truth and “down and to the left” for a lie, or whatever they say it is.  I remember very clearly when I was in college, one of my psychology professors telling the class that this was patently false.  Directionality of gaze was not so much the issue; rather a person averting their gaze in general, or being unable to look someone else in the eyes, could signify deception.

Then again, it could signify a lot of things; distraction, feelings of inadequacy or shyness, feelings of guilt (unrelated to lying.)  Plus, anyone who’s ever been done dirty by a spouse or best friend could probably tell you it’s completely possible for a person to look you square in the eyes and lie to your face.

Of course, I’m digressing, as usual.  The point is, a lot of the so-called clues to detecting when someone is lying to you, seem, in my opinion, vague and unable to be extrapolated to the majority of people with enough accuracy to be conclusive.  That may read like a mouthful, but all I really mean is that these “tells” don’t occur with enough consistency or reliability to be useful in most situations.  There are too many variables, and unless you are the type of person who likes to take chances with your relationships, you don’t want to accuse someone you care about of lying unless you’re damn sure.

Perfect example;  I’ve seen it mentioned before that people who qualify their statements with remarks like “To tell you the truth,” “Frankly,” and “To be honest,” are actually unconsciously cuing you to the fact that they are about to lie to you.

Am I the only person, then, that regularly uses those expressions…and then proceeds to do exactly that– tell the truth?  I can’t speak for everyone, but when I use that phrase, it usually means that what I’m about to tell you will either seem A) surprising/unexpected coming from me, or B) that what I am about to say is going to be the truth, but perhaps an unpleasant truth.  

Anyway, I’m definitely not disputing that there are often physiological and physical signs present when a person is lying.  However, I think these signs need to be taken in context.  The fact that lie detector tests are not considered reliable or accurate enough to be used in court should be at least some indication that many of these signs of deception are not consistent enough between subjects to be 100% reliable.  I would guess that some indicators are also more accurate than others.  For instance, involuntary reactions like pupil dilation and micro-expressions would likely be a more reliable indicator of deception than a turn of phrase, such as “To tell the truth,” the use of which is subjective depending on the speaker.  (For instance, perhaps that phrase was used frequently throughout the speaker’s childhood by his mother, and thus is a learned mannerism and has no bearing on deception.)

I’m sure there are people out there like Dr. Cal Lightman in Lie to Me* (I think they’re called poker players), and I have great admiration for people with that skill set.  But I doubt there are many of us regular Joes that can do what Cal does.  I’d wager that individually, how effective each of us is as a human lie detector will depend, in one part, on how much we know our subject, and in another part, how observant and aware we are of other people in general.

Tangential to that topic, I’ve heard it said that people who preface their opinions with “No offense intended,” “No disrespect,” or some similar sentiment, are in fact, about to insult you.

This is another blanket statement with which I disagree.  It may be true that a lot of people use this phrase as a passive aggressive way to take a jab at someone, but–and again, I’ll only speak for myself here– when I say “No disrespect,” it is often when I know my opinion is directly contradictory to the other persons’s, or when there seems to be no way to stand behind my point without seeming combative.  It’s been my experience that some people become almost automatically defensive and even hostile when confronted with an opinion that is very different from their own.  Some people take it as a personal affront.  If you don’t believe me, scroll through your Facebook wall.  I’m sure you’ll eventually find at least one ridiculously hostile argument over politics, religion, sports, or something even less significant.

Anyway, as usual, I’ve sort of taken a short post and gotten way too analytical about it.  Thanks for bearing with me and my rambling.

And if  you don’t like it, No disrespect, But to be Honest...fuck you.  (Just kidding…sort of.)