One Republican Controls UnShuttingdown the Shutdown. No Checks, No Balances. Just GOP Abuse of Power. No, seriously.

It's apparently, true. Democrat House Rep, Chris Van Hollen, was on the House floor yesterday*, clarifying this for the American People:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A

What this means is that the USG is stymied utterly. Back on October 1, 2013 (just two weeks ago) at 1:10AM (!), the House voted on House Resolution 368. In it, there was something about amending the rules of the House so that the only person who could put forward a motion to open the United States Government is the House Majority Leader or one of his designees. The House Majority Leader, right now, is Republican, Eric Cantor.



Yep, the rules were changed in the middle of the night on the same day that the government shutdown began, giving a Republican ultimate power over whether the USG opens or not. This was a tactic by Republicans to make sure that their shutdown could not be undone by Democrats outvoting them. What this means is that one man has unchecked power to control the American government. Sure, he can't do that much with this power, just keep the governing body of one of the most powerful countries on the planet in a coma.

Republicans seem to be a little fuzzy on this whole "democracy" thing. But then, that's nothing new.

What kills me is this line coming from conservatives on how "if Obama would just negotiate" this government shutdown would end. Think of it this way, the Republicans "rendition" the government and hold it in an undisclosed location that only Eric Cantor knows the location of. They then turn to the President and say "let's do a deal." No one else in government can override this. No one else in government can vote this away. As House Rep Van Hollen says in the video above, "Democracy has been suspended."

The thing is, there is a legal mechanism for undoing laws that you don't think are just. This ain't it.

To me this thing feels like a legislative coup. No one in government has this kind of power normally. No one.

I just trolled Google News, searching through their "US" section and also doing a search for "House Resolution 368" and "Eric Cantor" and found no results from mainstream news sources. I did find a brief mention on today's edition of Democracy Now and one article about the Republican rule change at IBTTimes.com, but that was it, as far as real news sites goes.

Please pass the video at the top of this blog post or this blog post on to everyone you know. This is a big deal and it needs to go viral. The Republicans have done something that is truly unAmerican and their supporters need to understand this. Conservatives need to ask themselves if the Democrats had done this for the 2000 election, would they have supported it?

Every American needs to understand what has happened here.

Minor update 10/14/13 3:00PM: Apparently, Van Hollen spoke on the House floor on Saturday, not yesterday.

NYTimes reports on Federal Judge Rosemary M. Collyer challenging the Obama Admin's policy on drones killing Americans.

via Instagram http://instagram.com/p/cPM-ueSrka/

Read the whole article (it's really good!): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/politics/judge-challenges-white-house-claims-on-authority-in-drone-killings.html

Here's an excerpt:

Judge Collyer said she was “troubled” by the government’s assertion that it could kill American citizens it designated as dangerous, with no role for courts to review the decision.

“Are you saying that a U.S. citizen targeted by the United States in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?” she asked Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general. “How broadly are you asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the limit to this?”

She provided her own answer: “The limit is the courthouse door.”

SWEET! It's so nice to see someone in power have the same feelings as me. Hell, I think she should be saying this even if there had been no Americans killed. All humans are created equal, right? So they deserve a trial before they are found guilty, sentenced to death and executed, right? Just because there's an (undeclared) war on terror going on doesn't mean their are no rules.

Another gem from the article:

Mr. Hauck acknowledged that Americans targeted overseas do have rights, but he said they could not be enforced in court either before or after the Americans were killed. Judges, he suggested, have neither the expertise nor the tools necessary to assess the danger posed by terrorists, the feasibility of capturing them or when and how they should be killed.

“Courts don’t have the apparatus to analyze” such issues, so they must be left to the executive branch, with oversight by Congress, Mr. Hauck said. But he argued, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has in the past, that there are multiple “checks” inside the executive branch to make sure such killings are legally justified.

Judge Collyer did not buy it. “No, no, no,” she said. “The executive is not an effective check on the executive.” She bridled at the notion that judges were incapable of properly assessing complex national security issues, declaring, “You’d be surprised at the amount of understanding other parts of the government think judges have.”

This is what "abuse of power" looks like. Right here. When one branch of government stops another branch from doing it's job. This is also a great example of what "undermining the United States Government" looks like. The Obama Admin needs to stop trying to sabotage how our government is supposed to work.

Nice of Obama to finally remember this fact...

Just saw this in today's NYTimes.com daily top stories email:

"The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are, contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop."

PRESIDENT OBAMA, announcing that he would recommit himself to closing the Guantánamo Bay prison.

It's amazing how some Americans can utterly ignore the core principles of this country until it's more convenient for them to deal with it. I mean, closing Gitmo was something Obama promised to do before his first term and here he's resurrecting that promise a year into his second term? Was his popularity in the polls dropping or something? Does he want us to be distracted from something else he's doing that goes against American principles even more?

Or is it just that a load of Gitmo prisoners are trying to kill themselves via a hunger strike right now that has actually gotten coverage by the mainstream media?

Either way, it would be nice if he could do more like this. Like stopping with the drone assassinations and the troops in Afghanistan. Yeah, that'd be nice. Seriously, why stop at acknowledging just one thing that goes against your own country's principles?

#wishfulthinking

Republicans Up to Their Old Anti-Democracy Tricks Again...

The Republicans are at it again. In Texas, over 80,000 registered voters were taken off the rolls because they were believed dead by the state. The catch is that one official found a lot of evidence to suggest that most of those 80,000 people were NOT dead. Here's a cutting from the above-capped article from NPR.org:

Texas got the names off the Social Security Administration's death list. Social Security warned Texas that the list shouldn't be relied on, but to no avail. The state Legislature and Texas Gov. Rick Perry passed legislation last session mandating the change.

In Houston, after Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Don Sumners got hundreds of calls from elderly voters who'd gotten the death notice, he looked at the Social Security list that was being used.

"And then a quick check of some of the information on that database led us to believe that there was a big probability that even a majority of the names on the list were people that were still alive," he says.

Back in 2000 we saw some serious issues with the "election" of George W. Bush. Not only were there loads of evidence that the true will of the people was not represented by the ballot count, the final dispute of who should be president was not settled by Congress (as the US Constitution seems to suggest it should be), but instead was decided by the Supreme Court (the most dominant of judges at the time were all appointed by Republicans).

Then, in 2004, we saw more evidence that various election systems in place around the country weren't necessarily providing us with accurate results.

In both instances it was the Republicans who seemed to be "behind" efforts against accurate counting and making sure it was easy for everyone to vote. Just Google "Greg Palast" for the details.

Finally, in 2008, there was a candidate that was voted for overwhelmingly, so even major problems with ballot counting wouldn't ultimately matter. In 2000 and 2004, the margins were tight, so it took only a bit of inaccuracy to change results (yes, I believe that in 2004, Kerry probably won and, in 2000, I am sure Gore should have won).

Now, in 2012, during a race for president that everyone thinks is incredibly close, I am reminded of all the problems we had with close elections in 2000 and 2004. This NPR article provides evidence that the Republicans are once again pulling this same crap.

How any true conservative can continue to call themselves a Republican is beyond me. The very definition of the word "conservative" suggests a Conservative would want to make sure everyone who is legally allowed to vote should be able to do so AND have their vote counted. Yet, here we go again.

I am reminded of the many times during the regime of George W. Bush how any dissenting opinions were called, by Republicans, "anti-American."  Yet, it was the Republicans behaving in the most anti-American way of all--fighting against a fair and accurate election.

America is a pretty scary place, in this long-time-observer's opinion.

Republicans Blame Obama for High Gasoline Prices in a complete #IronyFAIL

Here's a serious ironyfail. The above-capped article comes from the NYT earlier this month (here: www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/high-gas-prices-gi... ) and with a title like "Rising Gas Prices Give G.O.P. Issue to Attack Obama" how could I resist blogging about it? I mean, really, Republicans? Gas prices are too high for you? Perhaps you should just STFU and support alternative energy? But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here's a cutting from the above article and refers to a "closed-door" meeting held by GOPers:

"“This debate is a debate we want to have,” Mr. Boehner told his conference on Wednesday, according to a Republican aide who was present. “It was reported this week that we’ll soon see $4-a-gallon gas prices. Maybe higher. Certainly, this summer will see the highest gas prices in years. Your constituents saw those reports, and they’ll be talking about it.”"

Oh really, John? You want to have this debate? Well, not with me, buddy. Because the basic laws of supply and demand tell us that if you want to lower price you either raise supply or reduce demand. The latter could have been done DECADES ago if only Republicans hadn't been such douchebags when it comes to protecting their pals in the oil biz. But hang on, there's more--here's another cutting from the article:

"“They want higher energy prices. They want to push their radical agenda on the public,” Rick Santorum said at a campaign event last week, accusing Democrats of pushing alternatives to oil. “We need a president who is on the side of affordable energy.”

Newt Gingrich wrote on Twitter on Friday that “gasoline prices are unacceptable. We can do better!” He urged his supporters to sign a petition on his Web site calling for a return to $2.50-a-gallon gas. “Drill here. Drill now. Pay less,” the petition says.

And talking points from the Republican National Committee that go out to conservative commentators every Friday often include rising gas prices among the “Top Line Messaging” for the week. A recent “Pundit Prep” document cited the national debt, unemployment and the price of gas as the three best ways to define the “Obama economy.”"

Gosh, it is a shame car-drivers are forced to pay these high prices for gasoline! Too bad there aren't other ways to fuel your car, like some sort of, oh I don't know, ALTERNATIVE kind of ENERGY that could be used.

I'm so SICK of looking at politicians shrug their way through explaining why things are so messed up, as though they could never have seen these problems coming or done anything at all to avoid them. Whether it was 911, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war or the economy, NO ONE apologizes for any of it and everyone claims they couldn't have seen it coming, despite anyone with eyes, basic math skills and a history book could have predicted all of it.

The fact of the matter is that our leaders in Washington, Democrat and Republican alike, are fucking ROCK STUPID and choose to follow their lust for cash and power around rather than their morals or feelings of responsibility for their fellow American citizen.

Seriously, Republicans, do you realize how unbelievably MORONIC you look complaining about high gas prices??? When Clinton was in office, gas wasn't much more expensive than $1/gal. 911, two Republican wars in the Middle East and a decade+ of inflation and YES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HIGHER GAS PRICES, YOU UTTER DOUCHES!

We seriously need to instate a Hypocrisy Police in the US. This shit is getting too crazy for words.

Santorum is making it hard for me to be a polite atheist

Back on the 17th I found the above-capped op-ed at NYTimes.com (original here: www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/opinion/blow-santorum-exalts-i... ). The piece talks about Santorum's "increasingly unhinged" public comments. This is an understatement to a guy like me. I feel like my right to free thought hinges on my respect for the right of others to free thought. In other words, if I start saying things like "you're belief in a god is ridiculous" I open myself up to people saying things to me like "your lack of belief in a god is ridiculous." So, I try to hold my tongue.

Of course, religious folks fall just short of telling me my lack of faith is ridiculous, as it is, and based on the way Santorum talks, it seems like a lot of folks with similar beliefs would like to shape government based on these beliefs. (And they worry about Islam?) Here's a cutting from the above op-ed:

Also last week, he suggested that liberals and the president were leading religious people into oppression and even beheadings. I kid you not. Santorum said: “They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine."

Then, just today I saw Santorum quoted as saying (source: www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57385629/romney-santorum-... ): "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up."

Santorum was bagging on a speech JFK used to explain that he wasn't going to force his religious views on America. Instead of, as another CBSNews.com article points out (source: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385430-503544/santorum-... ):

Santorum said Kennedy "was trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you."

So, Santorum says JFK and the USG shouldn't force their religious views on We The People. Fine, but how can he turn around and wear his religion on his sleeve, thus suggesting he'll impose his religous values on us?

Of COURSE people of faith have should have a role in the public square, but their faith itself? Yeah, bad idea. We need facts to take center stage, not belief in a magical being protecting us from pollution, rising sea levels and a dramatically changing climate (not to mention AIDS, cancer and terrorist bombings). And that's what scares me. Maybe it's just the media making America seem more prone to Believery than we really are, but it really seems like we've become the subject of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" where people trust a malfunctioning computer in a cave instead of trusting facts and common sense to protect themselves from danger and stagnation. Only, in this case, the computer is Christianity.

That's the real danger of believing in God and trusting men in robes (or white collars) to provide all of your guidelines for living your life--you forget to think for yourself. Regardless of whether there is or isn't a God, we all know humans get things wrong all the time. So how can you blindly assume that your pastor or priest, rabbi or imam, hasn't misunderstood the will of the being that created the entire freakin' universe?

Let's be honest--the universe is a vast and amazing place. The idea that any human can even come close to understanding what God wants indicates an amazing amount of ego and hubris. In the end, you really MUST make your own judgment and NOT trust only religion and religious people, because what if they're wrong? Either way, you'll have only yourself to blame for your decision, so why not take responsibility for yourself?

I just favorited this from @OccupyWallStNYC... (UPDATED)

"#TwitterBlackout. #J28"
January 27, 2012 at 09:37PM
from: @ OccupyWallStNYC's original tweet.

UPDATE: Well, that was a bust. I saw @OccupyWallStNYC tweeting on the 28th. Really useless.  Wondering just how purposeful this whole #Occupy movement will be in the end.  My guess is that it'll just draw attention to how little the powers-that-be like real dissent.  Too bad the USG can't just bribe them all to go home.  That would make things a lot more simple, cheaper and better for PR.

My latest post over at Mandommag.com is up! It's all about worrying for nothing about Obama's 2nd Term

Head over to mandommag.com or hit up the post itself here:
www.mandommag.com/2012/01/love-obamas-second-term.html

#SOPA/PIPA vs #NDAA Part Two: Chasing the Phantom Menace (I'm NOT talking Star Wars)

Yesterday, I posted part one of my 3-part SOPA/PIPA Vs NDAA series (read it) in which I suggest that all these sites going dark to protest SOPA/PIPA was just misplaced efforts and energy (the indefinite-detention-legalizing NDAA of 2012 is much more worthy of protest, harms more of our core human rights, and is already a law!). Last night over at Mandommag.com, my third post for them went into more detail explaining just how the NDAA is much more of a threat than the SOPA/PIPA bills (read it). But in my post, here on thepete.com yesterday, I also suggested that the reason this movement had gotten so big was not because of how much a threat SOPA or PIPA are (they haven't even passed either house of Congress yet) but because big Internet companies stand to lose a lot of money if they get blocked in the US (aka they're only doing it for the money).  Today I'm going to suggest that protesting SOPA/PIPA actually helps the bad guys.

#SOPA/PIPA vs #NDAA Part One: What is this protest really about?

I've got a post that should go up at some point soon over at Mandommag.com about this same topic, but I thought I should go into a bit more detail.

So why all this hubbub about SOPA and PIPA when the bills have yet to pass either house of Congress? Where was all this hubbub when the NDAA of 2012 was passed? This is my main gripe about all these sites going dark today.  Which is a bigger threat? Stopping us from using the Internet the way we want or a violation of one of the most basic human rights our constitution guarantees?

Of course, SOPA/PIPA need to be protested, but there has been MUCH more of a net-wide freakout over these two unpassed laws than is required at this point in time.  Wouldn't humanity be better served by spending our energy and effort on protesting the more infringing law that is already on the books rather than laws that are three very large steps away from being laws?

Maybe we should ask ourselves why there is such a bigger outcry against SOPA/PIPA.  Is it just because these laws could give corporations the ability to effectively shut down some our favorite websites?  In the great scheme of things, that seems pretty minor.  What's your Internet freedom compared to your actual freedom?

So what is it, then? My only guess is that it's all for the money.  Think about all the money those sites will lose if they are blocked from American users.  Since they would be blocked Google would probably have trouble indexing them and if they had trouble indexing them, they'd have trouble putting targeted ads on their sites.  In theory those sites could go under entirely, robbing Google and other b2b service providers of a lot of income.  Of course, when you or I get detained indefinitely at a protest, that doesn't have any effect on these companies' bottom lines, so why should they care?

[caption id="attachment_13117190735" align="alignright" width="150" caption="From Tumblr today. Really? The WHOLE Internet needs to be saved?"][/caption]

Maybe it's a stretch, but why else would such Internet powerhouses as Google, and Wikipedia care about a law being passed? They didn't seem to give a shit when a law was passed that would allow for the legal indefinite imprisonment of people. So, when human freedom is at risk, they're meh. But what gets these big guys motivated? Lost revenue. Then you see them marshaling their Internet forces and suddenly it's as though the entire Internet was at risk--literally, that's what Tumblr is saying today.

"SAVE THE INTERNET" any page on Tumblr reads right now.

It's as though the Internet always existed or as though we couldn't live without it.

Do I think SOPA/PIPA are worth protesting? Of course. Do I think it's a waste of resources because there's a bigger threat out there? Definitely.

I've plenty more to say about this.

Part Two coming tomorrow....

My 2nd post for Mandommag.com is up: Is Obama Running for the Republican Nomination? http://goo.gl/9hyoH

My 2nd post for Mandommag.com is up: Is Obama Running for the Republican Nomination? http://goo.gl/9hyoH, a photo by thepetecom on Flickr.

Mind you, this is a site for adult men. Just so you know. That link once again: goo.gl/9hyoH

Huh... John Edwards has something wrong with his heart? Didn't we already know that?

Huh... John Edwards has something wrong with his heart? Didn't we already know that?, a photo by thepetecom on Flickr.

Seriously. Why does this guy even get covered in the news anymore? What's wrong with the media where they waste our time with front page news reporting on people who have no effect on our lives? If people like Edwards must get covered, why on the front page?

I just favorited this from BreakingNewsUK on Twitter...

UK sets out conditions for Scotland to hold vote on breaking away from the rest of Britain - @Reuters http://t.co/Mk8xRXlh
January 10, 2012 at 01:03PM
from: @ BreakingNewsUK
original

DRAW EVERY DAY 2012 0102: American Octopus #DED2012

DRAW EVERY DAY 2012 0102: American Octopus #DED2012, a photo by thepetecom on Flickr.

I started out drawing the guy on top but then forgot where I was going with it. I looked at the blank area below his waist and all I could see were tentacles. Weird, huh? This is day 2/drawing 2 of my Draw Every Day series of art projects this year. Do you post your drawings online? Link to them in the comments!

Check out yesterday's DED2012 drawing or check them all out (though if you're reading this close to early January, there aren't many posted yet).

#Obama signs HR 1540 (aka the #NDAA for 2012) into law on New Year's Eve

Well, I was about a week off. Instead of signing HR 1540 (aka the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012) on Christmas, as I expected, he signed it on New Year's Eve while everyone was gearing up (or already taking part in) their New Year celebrations. What's even better is that he included one of those signing statements which I'm pretty sure he said he would not do.

Of course none of those concerns comes close to those I have about HR 1540, itself. Mainly, I'll cite a couple points from the USA Today article screencapped above. First:

President Obama ended 2011 by signing a major defense bill, despite what he called "serious reservations" about provisions regarding interrogations of terrorist suspects, sanctions against Iran, and relations with Russia.

"Serious reservations" would seem to suggest he should veto the damn thing. Instead, he signs it and adds on a signing statement that says he's not going to follow parts of the law that he feels will stop him from doing his job as president. That's wonderfully vague and also seems like an abuse of power. Doesn't he know how checks and balances work? A president really has one thing he can do to "check and balance" the Legislative Branch of the USG, and that is veto bills. Instead, as Bush did before him, he cherry picks the parts of the laws he likes, allowing him to effectively have a sort of kingly power.

Here's a bit more from that USA Today article, this bit is quoted from an AP report:

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

Now this part really bugs me because it is actually a form of bigotry--in the Declaration of Independence we put forth the idea that all people are entitled to certain human rights. Not just American citizens, but all humans. HR 1540 essentially says that non-Americans aren't entitled to the same human rights as Americans, in a way, saying that non-Americans aren't human. We say in our DoI that all humans are entitled to these rights, so if we don't guaranty them for all humans, aren't we saying that some humans aren't human?

The AP report goes on to include a quote from Obama:

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...

The depressing thing is that Obama has already done the "without trial" thing by ordering a drone strike on American-born Islamist Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki may have said bad things and may have want to kill Americans, but he was an American and didn't actually kill any Americans before he, himself, was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen last year. He got no trial, got no lawyer, did not have his rights read to him before his arrest, he wasn't arrested, but he did get sentenced to death by the Commander-in-Chief, aka, President Obama.

What good are rules if you're just going to ignore them? What good are laws if you're just going to violate them? Is our entire concept of freedom and justice in America just an illusion that can be tossed aside when our leaders feel like it?

Happy New Year!

Democrat Rep moans how a million bucks doesn't go so far these days but fails to offer a trade with me.

This is the Absurd Disconnect buying the souvenir mug right here--the above "quote of the day" comes from the NYTimes daily top headlines email. Just so Google can see it, here it is in the text:

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"To say that I'm enjoying a millionaire's lifestyle - well, I can tell you, I guess a millionaire's income doesn't go very far these days."
ED PASTOR, an Arizona Democrat who is among 250 members of Congress with a net worth of $1 million or more.

What a douchebag. Um, hey man, you want to try trading incomes with me? Because I'll gladly take the tough life you've got going on and then you can see how the other half lives--er--the other 99% lives, I mean.

Ed Pastor is profiled in an NYT article today where his comments clearly show that, Republican or Democrat, money makes you stupid--or at least amoral, or maybe both--I mean, how, in today's economic climate, do you talk about being a millionaire and that a million doesn't go very far these days??? Did Pastor even stop for a split second to consider how that sounds to himself, let alone the rest of us?

The article also reports on how the income gap between our leaders and us is more dramatic than it has ever been. It even goes so far as to refer to Pastor and other millionaires in Congress as "aristocrats." That sure sounds accurate to me. These guys need to wake up and smell the reality that their corporate overlords/golf-buddies are robbing us to pay them. If they can't make a million go very far then maybe they should try giving the money to people who will put it to better use. For instance, shelters, hospitals that can't afford to stay open, schools, charities that provide relief to disaster-stricken areas or ANYONE who isn't a rich, jerk-off, politician.

Hey, didn't #Obama say something about NOT using signing statements like this?

Contrary to what some celebrity-types think, I don't think it's a good idea to blindly support a leader just because you voted for him. I mean, what if the guy blatantly goes against what he said he'd do? Like how Obama is issuing these signing statements like the NYTimes reported:



Obama says he'll enforce the parts of the new budget bill he thinks don't infringe on his powers as president. This sounds like a case of "new boss, same as the old boss" to me. Especially since Obama said during his campaign that he wouldn't use signing statements to dodge the will of Congress. And it looks like this won't be the only instance of him issuing a signing statement to get around the will of Congress. The screencap below comes from a recent post on talkingpointsmemo.com:



So, yeah, Holder says Obama will be signing the already controversial NDAA of 2012 into law but will tack on a signing statement to make it less objectionable to him. So we're basically watching Godzilla and King Ghidora trying to decide who should destroy Tokyo. Not only does the NDAA seem to violate the US Constitution, but Obama tweaking it at his whim is dictatorial regardless of the ends he uses to justify said tweaking. Hell, if Obama and Bush can decide to not follow laws they decide are unjust, then why can't everyone?

Irresponsible Democrats and Republicans need a bill in order to keep the USG "operating" Past this Weekend

Irresponsible Democrats and Republicans need a bill in order to keep the USG "operating" Past this Weekend, a photo by thepetecom on Flickr.

What a state the USA is in. I grabbed this screencap from Google News in the middle of the night last night. When I went back to Google News just now, ten hours(ish) later, the top story was how CNN's iReport was letting USGIs coming back from Iraq tell their stories. Even Google News' algorithm is biased against important news! >_< Anyway, so here's where we are in America today. Partisan bickering means the USG may shut down in three days. I doubt it will, but the fact is, unless they print more money, it appears that they'll be out of it. What the hell are our leaders doing to let America fall into such a state? We spend over a trillion on wars chasing a tiny threat while our country faces bigger threats domestically, from crumbling infrastructure, to health care problems and an economy that is not doing it's job of supporting all (or even most) Americans.

While our leaders are bickering about keeping the government operating, the country it's supposed to protect is falling to pieces. Lovely. You know what? I'd be curious to what difference it would make if they DID shut down on Monday. I wonder if things would really be better or worse.

Is Rick Perry's "Strong" TV spot in violation of YouTube's Hate Speech Prohibition?

 dawnowar on Tumblr, replied to my post: Do you agree with Obama's War on Religion? Rick Perry does so much he invented it. >_

and report it for hate speech against gay people. thats a choice in the dropdown.

Ooo, EXCellent point!  Thanks to the inadvertently brilliant guy on Perry's campaign who is in charge of his YouTube page, the copy from the TV spot is in the caption to the video--so we can easily see the part that could probably be called bigoted:

...there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

Well, I don't know if I'd call that "hate" speech, so much as I'd call it "dislike" speech.  I mean, it's not like he's saying he hates gays.  He is saying having gays in the military is as bad as prayer not being allowed in school.

Of course, YouTube defines hate speech as:

speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity

Hm, is this TV spot attacking or demeaning gays in the military?  I'm not sure. It certainly does single them out as being as "bad" as no prayer in schools.

Well, here's the link to his video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

It's up to you: go flag it for hate speech or just dislike it like I did.  Either way, we all need to remember that when you're the President of the United States of America, you're the President of the gays of America, too.

Do you agree with Obama's War on Religion? Rick Perry does so much he invented it.

Do you agree with Obama's War on Religion? Rick Perry does so much he invented it. >_, a photo by thepetecom on Flickr.

And look how many dislikes it's got! Go dislike it yourself here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA