The Case for Eight Justices

Our own Lindsey Graham is having just too darn much fun at his town halls.  He loves the attention, loves to perform.  And doesn't give a rat's ass what we Dems have come to say.  He's not there to listen.  Buffered by misinformation about Planned Parenthood and abortion funding, a now regular misquote of Joe Biden's, and truly ironic comments about Democratic partisanship, his message is basically that Donald Trump is president, and we should just "get over it."

Graham justifies defunding Planned Parenthood to prevent the government from funding abortions, which it doesn't.

And after House republicans voted over fifty times to repeal the Affordable Care Act at an estimated cost of over $75 million, with big money behind challenges going to the Supremes, Graham is accusing DEMS of being partisan, and advising us to "get over it?"

And then there is the Joe Biden quote, that he has gleefully dragged out whenever asked about the Senate's refusal to even hear Merrick Garland's nomination by President Obama.

First of all, since when do republicans propose to follow anything Joe Biden advises?

Apart from that, the reality is that Joe Biden actually suggested that IF a seat became vacant during an election year, the nomination should not happen until after election day -- NOT until the newly elected president takes office.  The reasoning being that an election season should not be sullied by a contentious Supreme Court nomination debate (There are plenty of other things with which to sully it.).  His point being that the nomination should occur by the sitting president, but after Election Day.

Never passing up an opportunity to twist the truth to their advantage, republicans quickly named the misquote the "Biden Rule," and drag it out whenever convenient, happily during Obama's last year in office.

So let's stick the "Biden Rule" where it belongs and get on with the real issues about the Gorsuch nomination.

Most of us plain old American citizens don't really understand how important the Supreme Court is to the actual face of our day to day democracy.  We know about Roe v. Wade, and the more political of us know why Citizens United was bad, but truly, as we go about our daily lives, the make-up of the Supreme Court is the most important force in America.  The successful nominee will determine the direction of our country, and our lives, for decades.

It has been a bad time for the country because the Supremes have been ruled by narcissistic right wingnuts like Scalia, paranoid right wingnuts like Clarence Thomas,  and bought and paid for right wingnuts like Chief Justice Roberts for a very long time.  I can imagine the rage over the vacancies leading to the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan during Obama's term.  After the initial shock, I imagine the republican response to Scalia's death was, "enough is enough --  NO MORE OBAMA JUSTICES!"

Of course we were stunned when McConnell pulled the "Biden Rule" from out of his ass, although we should not have been.  The republicans in Congress had done nothing other than plot to retake control for the eight years of Obama's presidency.  Their entire agenda had been centered around "NO."  They were primed to obstruct.

So, all the excuses to keep the quite moderate and well-respected Merrick Garland off the court are bullshit.  He was the legitimately chosen and extremely competent nominee and was denied a hearing and a vote.  The end.

But Dems being Dems, we are witnessing the waffling and spinning off that seems to always go on, and always results in splits that diminish our power and our message to the people.  That message being that we are standing together because it is the right thing to do and we feel that strongly about it that we will risk our careers to stand together.  You know, like the republicans did to regain Congress.

So, whether to filibuster or not?  Jeez, the justifications I've heard for voting for Gorsuch rather than filibuster have truly made me want to pull out my white hair.  He's going to get the votes anyway?  So I'll just help them along???  How about:  We don't want the republicans to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, because then we can't use it next time.  Now that is truly the Democratic principle we all know and love, the one that says we should all cower and hope nobody notices that we aren't taking a stand.

Then we've got our perennial Dems in name only:  Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, this time joined by Joe Donnelly.  Overlooking what was done to their sitting president and his nominee, they are claiming that they are voting yes because Gorsuch is qualified.  And they are afraid if they vote no they won't get re-elected.

Neil Gorsuch is the kind of right-wing obsessive-compulsive weasel who has made lots of bad decisions, but know just how to cross his t's and dot his i's so that they won't be overturned.  He is farther right than Antonin Scalia, and doesn't have his sense of humor.  He is John Roberts on steroids.  He is a moral twin to Mike Pence, who believe that God has granted them the power to make the poor and powerless swing in the breeze.

Fun fact:  Mike Pence reports that he will not dine alone with a woman who is not his wife.  I imagine his hair turned white from the amount of scrubbing he does to try to get the dirty thoughts out of his head.  I also wish the not-dining-with-women-alone thing were true of Gorsuch; it would be a great relief to our three woman justices once he is confirmed.

But enough comic relief.

The big money is on Gorsuch.  There are lovely ads put out by the Judicial Crisis Network telling us to call our Senators and tell them to confirm this wonderful man.  No surprise, the Judicial Crisis Network is a right wing dark money group which in fact fueled their self-named judicial crisis immediately after Obama nominated Merrick Garland.  It appears that McConnell isn't all that smart or politically determined; what it takes is those big guys who have kept the idiot in office all these years to tell him what stand to take.

Googling these dark and dirty groups, going backwards till my head spun, I came up with the Wellspring Committee run by Ann Corkery, moneyed religious right attorney who doesn't just put her money where her mouth is; she puts her mouth there too, as with an article for RealClearPolitics explaining how the Dems opposition to Jeff Sessions is based on falsehoods and,

"One, the left's reflexive opposition to all things Donald Trump.  Two, the left's prep work for the next confirmation battle over Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court."

As far as facts and arguments go, we could say she's like Ann Coulter, but smarter.  And much richer.

The other nice thing about Corkery, Wellspring, Judicial Crisis Network, and all those other dark money groups is that they don't have to tell you who they really are and what they really do.  Corkery's twitter feed is a private group -- I didn't know you could even do that.  Secret money, secret affiliations, secret lives.  What we do know about all these groups and all this money behind Gorsuch is that their primary function is to protect their own power.  They are the people behind the corporations that run the country.  They are the "christian" conservatives that continue to put their money into controlling the rest of us with their fake family values, funding opposition to women's rights so that only women with money and influence can determine their reproductive lives and their futures.  They include the NRA and the Kochs.  JCN not only welcomes into their fold Dems who cave like Manchin and Heitkamp, they take to task their right-wing Supreme Court jurists who find against their interests, calling out Chief Justice Roberts for his decision on Obamacare.

If you want to try to follow the money, this is the article to read:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/wellsprings-flow/

And while you are there, please feel free to donate to Open Secrets, a group that we are really going to need to ferret out the dark money during these dark days.

So, we have Dems that are doing all they can to slow down the inevitable appointment of extremist Neil Gorsuch.  He will rule against minorities, against women, against voting rights.  He will always, always rule in favor of corporations and the religious right.

A shame the Dems couldn't get it together, like, right from the beginning of this battle.  They knew Trump couldn't have come up with a qualified nominee (one who could speak in complete sentences with words of more than one syllable, and who hadn't been indicted on anything) all on his own.  The deal that has made Paul Ryan Trump's lapdog may have had more to do with choosing the right Supreme Court justice than with agreeing on repealing Obamacare.  We all know that other than furthering Trump's fame and fortune, he really doesn't care what gets done.  We know he was handed a list of acceptable nominees, and can only assume he closed his eyes and pointed to Gorsuch.

Dems united in this battle, refusing to accept anyone who was not Merrick Garland, and the DNC putting money into ads and publicity insisting on same, might have still gotten us Gorsuch, but might have put things off for quite awhile.  The fuss about having to have nine justices just doesn't hold water.  I think the Supremes have done just fine with four and four.  Because in order to accomplish anything, four would have to be persuasive enough to convince a fifth to come over.  I put my money on my team.  I believe the women justices are smarter and more determined than those characters on the right.  I believe Kennedy has been persuaded more than once since his pal Scalia has found out once and for all whether satan really exists.

Without a skeevy Mike Pence being able to cast a deciding vote as he does in the Senate, an eight judge court might be the closest thing to nonpartisan, democratic decisions we will have.

What can we do?  We can make that call that the Judicial Crisis Network wants us to make.

Call your Senator:  202-224-3121 and tell them NO to Neil Gorsuch.

How Deep the Hatred

Bigotry is not new in America.  If you want to read about how politics has been shaped by fear and racism, try Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and Fractured America by Steve Fraser.  Or you may be able to, like me, simply reflect on the America where you grew up.

I lived in a little Italian community in a rural town in Rhode Island that became suburban during my childhood and teenage years.  My father, an Italian immigrant, would complain about "the frogs" who lived next door, threaten (privately) to "fix" neighbors who angered him by selling his vacant lots to blacks (I believe he said "negro"), and referred to my boyfriend as "that Jew."  For that matter, my future father-in-law, a Jewish man who was married to an Anglican, was incensed that his son was dating someone not Jewish.  In one rather hysterical family fight, he berated his son for going out with a "spaghetti-eater."  And then he threw the plate of spaghetti he was eating at the wall.

It is odd that those who were solidly members of groups who faced bigotry would be so quick to turn it on members of other groups.  Because I lived in a small Italian community, I did not hear the words "wop" and "guinea" until my first full-time supermarket job, and then it was a self-derogatory joke made by an old Italian meat-cutter.  I can only imagine the world of hate he had grown up in.

I was mostly unaware of any racial bigotry that might have been directed at me.  When I was a school psychologist on Long Island, the director once commiserated with me about Italian men, not realizing that I had kept my family name, thinking I had married an Italian. I believe she thought I was Jewish, as was she.  I am aware these days that I can pass for Jewish and Hispanic, but the features are not so distinct that it is ever a conscious part of my interactions with people.

It is so much a part of our heritage, to mistrust and hate those who are different than us, to feel threatened by their proximity, that we Americans are easy targets for anyone who seeks power.  Hence, the Donald Trump phenomenon.  Which has been brought to us by decades of right-wing rage targeting minorities.

Want to win an election?  Target a minority.

Just as in my mother's day Italians and Irish were called lazy and dirty, so have African-Americans and Mexicans.

Just as Jews have been persecuted for being sneaky and greedy, and for plotting control over whatever "civilization" happens to be feeling threatened, Moslems are now targeted as plotting to destroy "civilization."

Small people with perverse sexual obsessions have always in our society been fond of gay-bashing, when they aren't focused on what goes on in a woman's body without their approval.

As a woman who has not ever had to really face bigotry (only misogyny), I can't imagine how awful must be the threat of being targeted in America.  Show your papers.  Stop and frisk.  Driving while being black.  And Trump's outrages-of-the-day:  "We have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques" (six days ago).  Since he proposed the national database of Muslims last year when he was only a primary candidate, he apparently has realized that as a presumptive nominee, when he suggests taking away a group's rights he now has to do it "respectfully."

South Carolina is not the only proud state to waste taxpayer dollars on "bathroom bills" and bills that would keep out refugees and prevent Sharia Law from infiltrating our courts.  Because right wing radicals continue to foster fear and hatred, we have our own home-grown assault rifle toting paranoids to contend with.  In a totally irony-free atmosphere, state and federal legislators have caused such a panic over our rights and our safety that they have unleashed the very wackos we should be concerned about, who kill in the name of protecting the country from killers.

Fueled by the NRA which is controlled by arms manufacturers, our legislators have once again failed to pass even the most basic gun controls.  Paul Ryan, never before concerned about the rights of people kept off planes because they were wrongly put on the no-fly list is now expressing his concern for people that would wrongly lose their right to buy a gun.  And how about this pretzel-shaped rationale:  by refusing to sell a gun to someone on the no-fly list we would be jeopardizing national security by alerting them to the fact that they are being watched....  Hmm, you mean like if they are told they can't get on a plane???

Which leaves us all waiting for the next mass shooting.  And while we are waiting, innocent people continue to be killed on the streets, in bars, at home.  And the rage goes on. 

Gun Safety v. Gun Control

As I updated my legislative tracking list yesterday, I cheered because a few of our Democratic leaders in South Carolina are loading up the House and Senate with gun bills.  But I grimaced every time I entered the preferred term "gun safety" rather than "gun control."

We Dems don't much like to fight.  We operate under the delusion that if we frame what we are doing in more peaceable terms, our opponents will look thoughtful, shrug and then say, "Well, then, I never thought of it that way."

Meanwhile, republican wingnuts (pardon my redundancy), harbor no such concerns about our feelings when they are talking about gun "freedom."  The same holds true when they proudly claim that they are "anti-abortion" as opposed to our gentler "pro-choice."

This is a battle of words, but the words represent how strongly we feel about going to war.  There is a reason that while my car is laden with political bumper stickers, I have passed up the opportunity to advertise my gun control sentiments.  The reason is twofold:  those who disagree are more willing to fight over it, and they are armed.

It is a good thing that we have legislators like Marlon Kimpson in the Senate and Wendell Gilliard in the House that are ready to stand up against the legislators who have drunk the NRA cool-aid that is killing off so many innocent people.  It is going to take not just a slew of bills, but it is going to take courageous co-sponsors, and it is going to take South Carolinians who are willing to yell louder and and yell every day until those bills are passed.

We need to stop worrying about what to call it, and how it will affect gun owners.  We have had enough polls showing that sane gun owners, including NRA members, want gun control.  They want licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and controls on what type of weapons are for sale.  The lunatics that are afraid that Obama is coming after their guns, that yell about Second Amendment rights without a clue about the meaning or history of the Constitution, are not going to be swayed by reasoned, gentler language.  They are bullies, and they are bullies with guns.  The way to stop a bully is through a show of strength and through fearlessness -- and I don't mean bigger bullets.

When someone rants about taking his (or her) gun away, I am tempted to point out that "you are exactly the type of person who should not own a gun."  Fact.  If you have irrational fears and anger issues, you shouldn't have a gun.  The shootings we have been subject to on a daily basis, whether mass shootings, terrorist attacks, gangbangers or paranoid or depressed loners, have gone on too long.  The rage and fear has been stoked by politicians who are bought by the NRA who exists solely for the arms manufacturers.  Lindsey Graham and Lee Bright, and all in their club, bear responsibility for what is going on in this country.  Their constant and unreasoned criticism of our country, their insistence that we are in danger and our national government is not doing anything about it, their targeting groups based on race, sex, sexual orientation, all feed the mob.

We need strong language, fearless language, and a determination not to stop fighting.  So join the lawmakers who have stepped up to fight this fight.  Letters to the editor, calls, emails, talking to friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, posting on social media -- the only way to stop a bully with a gun is to take away the gun.

And here is a PS:  we need bills that will carry penalties for individuals whose carelessness has left guns in the wrong hands.  Too many toddlers getting killed playing with their dad's weapon.  Painting toy guns pretty colors isn't going to do it.

Safer to Debate the Flag

Yesterday I posted to a Facebook group in response to a comment about "the flag."  I commented about a concern that I have these days, that is, that while we're all worked up about the Confederate flag, the even more important debate about gun control has gotten left behind -- just the way the NRA wants it.

Minutes later, someone replied in a rage.  She posted something to the effect that first we got her flag and now we want to take away her guns, and added "don't you people ever have enough?"  I thought about ignoring the rant, and then I thought about being intimidated by crazy people with guns.  So I replied that I wondered what was wrong with a debate about guns, and also, who "you people" are.  My first thought was that my picture was on my post and I am very obviously not an African American.  But no, her reply (which I merely scanned as she was getting more wild and long-winded) indicated that the group of "you people" to which I belonged was liberals.

Two days after her press conference about the flag, I heard an MSNBC commentator ask, "Nikki Haley being considered for vice president?"  This was after I had been stewing about what a shrewd political move this was on Haley's part.  Of course, the question at this point is idiotic, but her goals of being on the national stage are evident.

What makes me want to pull my hair out is just how clever her move was.  It may be time to take the flag down, she said, but let's not forget all those people who truly see the flag as a proud representation of their southern heritage.  Really, she repeated, let's not forget those people who love them their confederate flag.  And said it a couple more times.  She pretty nearly said the flag should come down, but she also made it quite clear that it wouldn't be up to her. 

While in Alabama for-goodness-sake the republican governor ordered all four flags removed from the capitol grounds, Nikki is letting us all know that her greatest concern is following the letter of the law.   Wink, wink.  That's the Nikki Haley that has never let the letter of the law get in the way of doing what she wants where her own self interest is concerned.

And as if Alabama hadn't had our heads spinning enough, Paul Thurmond, son of that old racist Strom, spoke eloquently and unequivocally calling for the end to the waving of the flag that represented racism and slavery.

So while Bentley of Alabama and our own Paul Thurmond are proving themselves to be on the right side of history on this one, I'm thinking that this is still a win-win for Haley.  She gets to sound like a reformer while making it clear that her heart is also with her redneck base.  She's going to let idiot senator Lee Bright take up the call for the paranoid and delusional.  As he is quoted in the New York Times:

“There are those of us who have ancestors that fought and spilled blood on the side of the South when they were fighting for states’ rights, and we don’t want our ancestors relegated to the ash heaps of history,” he said. “Through the years, the heroes of the South have been slandered, maligned and misrepresented, and this is a further activity in that.”

I am aware of just how quickly a pleasant southerner can turn rabid when certain trigger words come up.  It once was "Clinton" as in Bill, and then it became "Obama."  I imagine that over the coming months people will start to foam at the mouth over "Hillary."  But there are words like "confederate flag" and "gun control," "taxes" and "unions" that accomplish that same effect.  And republican politicians here in South Carolina have trained their followers well.

I don't think Dylann Roof created the firestorm that is brewing in our state.  It has always been close to the surface.  If we are truly going to "debate" the flag, we are going to see the crazies coming out of the woodwork.  And that leads me to my main point.

Nikki Haley lept at the chance to take her stand with the confederate flag.  She got to sound strong, and she got to move the debate away from gun control.  You may have heard that at a church vigil last week, a call for gun control was met by a roar of approval and a standing ovation -- except for Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, conspicuously seated in the front row.

It is clear that while Haley may shed a few crocodile tears for these victims of gun violence, she is able to pull herself together for the NRA.  Tim Scott, who pretends to be one with the African American community, is on the side of money and power -- as usual -- in this case, feet firmly planted on the same side as wacko Lee Bright, for the freedom to wield weapons.  Scott and Haley made a striking pair, sitting at the vigil for nine dead who would be alive but for the ease with which Dylann Roof could get a gun.

And that's the thing.  While we all fight one important battle -- to take down that flag that represents the enslavement and subsequent fear and hatred for free and equal African Americans, the issue of guns in the hands of the haters is left on the back burner.  Those bills promoting guns in schools and shops and on the street, open carry, lessening of training requirements, Second Amendment Awareness Day, tax free holidays for guns, they aren't going anywhere.  And how do we fight it anyway?  If the angry rednecks are getting ready for a showdown over the confederate flag, what will they do if they think the issue is taking away their guns?

I was unnerved by the strange Facebook attack yesterday.  But I am going to continue to talk about the need for gun control.  You can see, though, how much easier it would be to go after the flag and once again let the whole gun thing go away, until next time.

Still Too Soon...

Since the church massacre in Charleston, committed by a paranoid psychotic young man with a weapon he should never have had, I have been stunned, and then disgusted, and now enraged.  In attempting to do some cursory research for this post, I found that there is absolutely nothing I can say that hasn't already been said.  The same clowns and NRA puppets are coming out and saying the same things they said after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, after the massacre of children in Newtown, after each and every obscene mass murder in our country since Columbine.

When that asshole Mark Sanford was asked about gun control on MSNBC on Thursday, he said, "I think it's premature.  I think that advocates on both sides of the gun debate will use this tragedy to make their case."  He called it a "tug-of-war, if you will, that goes with the world of politics."

I wish I could just say what I am thinking, but the string of obscenities that come to mind just don't advance my position on this, so I won't.  Although obscenity would certainly be warranted in response to the obscenity of Sanford's bullshit.

Fact is, as usual, Sanford is not saying anything new.  I am sure that since Wednesday the NRA has been in high gear, reaching out to all its politicians in South Carolina and the rest of the country, soothing raw nerves, giving Nikki Haley a figurative tissue to dry her eyes.  I'm not sure she was choked up over the tragedy, or over "the humility" she was seeing.  A normal human being might consider that she had been wrong about her staunch advocacy over gun rights; after her all too recent prayer day, she might even wonder if God was trying to tell her something.  But what will come out of this, after she congratulates herself on being there for the families of the victims, is more certainty that what we need is more law and order, as well as more guns.  Just like her buddies at the NRA want her to believe.

It's appalling -- appalling doesn't even approach the word I am trying to convey -- that these protectors of the weapons can pretend to be protectors of the people.  The NRA bullshit spouted by Lindsey Graham about a mother needing a high capacity gun to defend her children, the bullshit by Wayne LaPierre that has been parroted by all our gun-totin', NRA worshipping officials:

This morning The Onion did an angry and ironic spoof, not of the violence, but of the NRA's Charles Cotton who was front and center telling us why we should not cause this tragedy to infringe on our constitutional rights.  In the words of The Onion:

“While we mourn those killed, we should never let an incident like this distract from our defense of [the fact that I myself am a pile of human waste who is fundamentally incapable of responding to the deaths of innocent people without raw, putrid sewage gushing from my mouth].”

And keep your eyes on Lindsey Graham, who is now saying that the reason this happened is the failure of the national background check system.  I wonder why the system failed... maybe it's because the last time it was up for debate in Congress people like Lindsey Graham played politics with it, hoping to slip in some nasty amendments and maybe water down the language.  It seems to me that basically what Graham wanted to do was track people who were mentally ill, and under no circumstances allow universal background checks.

If there was money involved here, I would say keep your hand on your wallet.

But it's only about money for the NRA.  They are again twisting this tragedy around to promote the kind of fear that actually armed people like the young man who committed this horrendous crime.  After Aurora, it took the NRA about a week to come up with the line that it is too soon after the tragedy to debate gun control.  By the time of the Newtown massacre, they were armed and ready, successfully convincing politicians and too many of the fearful public that what was needed was more guns, not less.

And the taste of success was green and gold.  Billions of dollars were made by the arms industry from the blood of innocent and fearful Americans.

So now the lines are well rehearsed.  The NRA has actually, as spoofed by The Onion, assigned blame to pastor and state senator Clementa Pinckney for failing to support bills that would allow people to carry guns in churches.  While Charleston mourns the tragedy, Nikki Haley has come out armed and ready for revenge, saying that the gunman deserves the death penalty.  I don't know what god she prayed to last weekend, but it was not the one that was being studied at the Emanuel AME Church on Wednesday.

The Time for Racism Is Nearly Over, Now Get Ready for Misogyny

You know it's hard to make my head spin these days.  But that it did when I heard that Wayne LaPierre, hypocrite and warmonger extraordinaire, said the following at the NRA's national convention:

"Eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough."

Since the quote made it internationally, it appeared I wasn't the only one who noted that Mr. LaPierre had outdone himself in the categories of ignorance and gall.  The demographically symbolic head of the NRA -- old, white male -- must have chosen his words carefully, so that most of those hearing the speech would cheer at the attack on both current and potentially future presidents without really understanding just how over-the-top it was.  That's our Wayne, too smart for the common folk.

But those who really heard the words, and thanks to New York Times reporter Nick Corasaniti who tweeted them, are no doubt still considering their significance.

As we talk about racism and continue to politely ignore misogyny, it is just astounding that LaPierre would be so blatant.  Not too many steps removed, in fact, from using the words "nigger" and "bitch."  Which I imagine he feels free to use in a smaller room.

Is this election season going to be one where overt hatred of women is going to be allowed and accepted the way the not-too-veiled birth certificate "controversy" was part of the anti-Obama rhetoric?  While reporters are chasing Hillary around and debating the correctness of her lunch choice, will anyone address the sexism that is already flying?  Will we allow through our silence jackasses like Wayne LaPierre to disqualify Clinton by virtue of her sex?  Will we be silent when ugly comments and photos circulate social media?  Or will we start shouting in outrage?

Because with LaPierre's crack, we should already be shouting.  It's not going to get any better.  Hillary can handle it; she's been proving that for decades.  But we as a country cannot.

The NRA's Hissy Fit

I was catching up on my news watching over the weekend, and an article on Rachel Maddow's 3/20 show caused me to do a double-take:

  

And even having watched it several times, it still brings tears to my eyes.

This is the reality of gun ownership slamming into America's fantasy.  It is an amazing experiment.  It is more effective than anything the creeps at the NRA have come up with.

And so the NRA and other gun organizations have (no pun intended) gone ballistic.  They are in full whine.  And the irony of it all is quite a thing to see.

They are talking about deceptive advertising and breaking New York City gun laws.  They bring up violations of city codes about displaying guns.  They question whether the city used public funds.

It turns out, the group that conducted this research in gun marketing, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, dotted their i's and crossed all their t's when they planned this experiment.  All legal.  Which won't stop the NRA from trying to find a way to destroy the group.  But as I am writing this blog, there have been 3,180,543 youtube views, and there are likely to be millions more.

On a day when I was feeling pretty discouraged by all the attacks coming from the right-wing in so many areas of individual rights, this was a great victory.

Here in South Carolina this week, on Tuesday, the House is going to be taking up S 3, the Senate's version of the Criminal Domestic Violence bill.  In light of our shameful statistics on domestic violence and shooting deaths -- more than 61 percent of women killed by domestic violence were killed by guns -- Senators Katrina Shealy and Larry Martin included a prohibition on convicted abusers owning or having in their possession a gun.  Although the bill was inevitably watered down to give judges discretion in ordering this prohibition on a case-by-case basis, the bill is still far stronger than the House version, H 3433, which has no language prohibiting guns.

So here we are, with S 3 already passed by the Senate and introduced into the House.  But the House appears to be ignoring S 3 so that they can be credited with passing the inferior H 3433, which will go before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday.  I surely don't understand the fighting over territory that sees so many bills duplicated, but I do believe it enables our legislators to muddy the water enough that they can do damage and take credit at the same time.  Which appears to be the plan here.

That's why it is important to contact House representatives immediately and tell them that we expect them to pass a Criminal Domestic Violence bill that includes strong gun prohibitions.  This is not a Second Amendment issue.  This is about not allowing violent individuals to have easy access to weapons.  This is about protecting families, women and children, and yes, men, from violent individuals the very best way possible.

The video produced by States United to Prevent Gun Violence should be enough to convince us that we can win this fight.  But our legislators need to hear from us.  Today, and as long as it takes.

Just as Silly

I'm having flashbacks to the Republican loss in 2012.  Remember when, immediately after the election, they were all talking about what they'd done wrong, that they must not have been reaching the American people, and then they came out the other end with the idea that it must be that they had to change, not the message, but the way they sold that message.  Say what???

So let's move forward to 2014.  Here are the Democrats, all demoralized, wondering what they did wrong.  All talking to each other having meetings and forming committees, trying to figure out why people didn't come out to vote for them.  It seemed like they almost nearly just about had it figured out.  Maybe it was because they hadn't represented the issues that Democrats were supposed to stand up for.  Maybe they were trying too hard to soften the message, to distance themselves from the President.  Maybe they had failed to talk to the voters about all the successes the Democrats had, in spite of Republican obstruction.

In fact, I'm hearing one Republican strategist say he can't understand why the Dems ran away from their successes, were afraid to talk about all the people that were now insured, the low unemployment rate, the declining deficit.  And Rachel Maddow is pointing out how the Dems that won in this really bad year were the ones that actually ran on Obamacare, the environment, saving Social Security, you know, Democratic issues.

So here we are a week and a couple days later, and I hear that Mary Landrieu who is in a runoff race for her Senate seat, is trying to push her opponent's bill to approve the XL pipeline before the end of the session.  Huh???

And here's a Harry Reid story:  apparently he is reluctant to get all those Obama judicial appointments -- and that all-important attorney general appointment -- through the Senate while the Democrats still hold the majority.

So what have we really learned from this year's midterm disaster?  Well, President Obama has figured out that if he plans on enacting all those things he promised in his two election campaigns, he's going to have to do it without the help of his party.  And the Republicans have learned to keep doing what they are doing, because it really scares the Dems and keeps their base happy.  The Democrats who didn't get it to begin with seem to have learned nothing.

With people voting to approve gun control measures, and legal marijuana, and gay marriage, the only big success stories from the candidates were those who ran a campaign on solidly progressive issues, like Al Franken.  Even the two guys who were beaten in an NRA-sponsored recall election in 2013  in Colorado for their gun control legislation had their day.  The voters re-elected them to the seats they had lost such a short time ago.  And Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper who promoted that gun control legislation has also won his re-election.  And my goodness, in the Arizona town where the school board voted to remove pages from an honors level science textbook that discussed abortion, the electorate sent those recently elected idiots back to their caves and elected candidates who actually approved of educating students.

Maybe voters aren't really paying attention to what the candidates stand for.  So when the candidates are afraid to be outspoken and challenge their opponents, all we have to go on is the rumor, scandalous headlines and idiotic ads.  No wonder then that voters are often able to vote smart on issues, but just pull that big "R" when it comes to candidates.

I just don't think that Wendy Davis or Alison Lundergan Grimes understand that where they fell short was where they backed off from being a Democrat.  And it seems that Mary Landrieu will learn too late that pushing the pipeline isn't what will make people head to the polls to support her in the runoff.

Silly times, tragic consequences.  

A Deadly Proposition

Yet another person shot by a police officer.  As of September 22, there have been 34 officer involved shootings in South Carolina, promising to beat last year's 42.  I am thankful that my son and daughter are not police officers.  And I hope that they are never in a potential conflict situation with one.  Because shooting has become the default option for police.

And while I hold the individual officer responsible for shooting innocent members of the community they patrol, the situation they find themselves in is not their fault.

The NRA is happy to promote the need for more guns to defend ourselves from threats that are unlikely to materialize -- unless we allow more people to indiscriminately own and carry guns.  They have made lemonade out of the blood of victims for years, increasing the profits of the arms manufacturers that they truly represent.  They seem to be having a great time doing it, too, filling their own coffers and convincing our pols that it is the NRA that is really in charge.

Which leads us to the other group that has been bought off by the arms industry, our very own legislators.  We can laugh at Lindsey Graham's hysterical wanderings, once again recently featured by Jon Stewart.  When Graham suggests that mothers should be armed with assault rifles at home:

“One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal.”

it's fine to snicker, but we must also remind ourselves that he is one of the idiots that has the power to make our laws.

More locally, we have addressed the situation of gun violence with the bizarre legislation that allows those who feel naked without their guns to frequent bars and restaurants with their muzzles by their side.  And in a partnership from hell, towns all over South Carolina and the nation have lined up for military gear, including tanks as well as assault rifles, from our own federal government, who despite all that talk about budget deficits just can't stop buying these things.  And once you own a grenade launcher, doesn't your finger just itch to use it?  The downside being the cost of training and practice, and, by the way, the lack of call for those particular services.

All the post 9-11 paranoia that has led to arming our local community governments for war naturally has resulted in a backlash of fear from citizens, with more and more instances cited of warrantless (and unwarranted) acts of violence against citizens.  When you are all suited up for battle and have no terrorists to fight, it seems the next best thing is the local pot smoker or poker game, and sometimes the family dog becomes the collateral damage.  In the case of the Texas German Shepherd Vinnie in 2013, the officers were at the wrong address in the wrong neighborhood, looking for someone wanted for god's sake for an expired vehicle registration.

Obviously, what happens next is we all need to get armed to protect ourselves from our own government, hence, all the phony fourth amendment nonsense.  And when scared citizens get armed, and you have scared police wielding weapons, you have the daily barrage of unnecessary death in a war zone of our own invention.

On September 18, in Georgia, police shot a man who was handcuffed in their cruiser after being arrested, when they failed to find the gun he was carrying in their search.

And South Carolina made international headlines in March when a York County officer shot a 70-year-old man who was reaching into the back of his car for his cane at a traffic stop.

The community response to the shooting of Michael Brown in St. Louis is a reflection of the national fury over a country that encourages its citizens and its defenders to see each other as potential combatants.

So it's really a matter of who will be next.  Police get shot at by fearful citizens, who are too quick to shoot at citizens for fear they will be shot.

And meanwhile we have the NRA cheering on fools like Lindsey Graham for stoking that fear, and our federal tax dollars buying so many military weapons that they are trickled down to our local governments.  For our local police, it may seem like Christmas, but they may want to rethink the situation when faced with a frightened citizen.  And we just might want to elect lawmakers who are less likely to want to fan the flames of distrust encouraging an armed citizenry and militarizing those whose mission should be to protect and defend.

War at Home

I have been away for awhile.  I found that it seemed I was writing the same old over and over again.  No new information, no new perspectives.  It has been nice being a member of the uninformed public.  Also, when I got back not a thing had changed -- except that somebody told me gay marriage is now legal in South Carolina, which I guess would be earth-shattering news if it were true.

The "riots" in St. Louis are related to George Zimmerman being handed his gun and set free with the blessing of the NRA and the KKK.  And the Zimmerman outrage is related to the fact that Columbia, SC, last year bought a tank from the federal government.

Rachel Maddow last night had an excellent retrospective on the shootings at Kent State in 1970.  But then she went farther back, to the campus protest in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1967, when Vietnam protests were turned over from local campus police to city police, ending in 65 people hospitalized.

After that, Madison hired a new chief of police, David Cooper, who in his long career there successfully demilitarized the police force, and began what is now called "community policing."

I urge you to read The Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko.  He paints a gruesome picture of how police departments in small communities in this country over the past decade have become armed.  Just as the US is supplying their favored sides in battles in the Middle East, they are also arming our communities.  And what they are being armed for is not fighting neighborhood crime, but for war.

Here are the priorities in the nation today:  we do not have money to spend on education, on housing, on psychotherapy.  We do have unlimited amounts to spend on arms and prisons.  And the citizens of our country are the ones who have chosen these priorities, because they are the ones who are voting.  They may be voting out of ignorance, they are certainly vulnerable to the hysterical fear-mongering of Fox News and the NRA, but the fact remains, we voters have chosen.

The reason we voters choose an armed America is because we believe that only the bad guys will get hurt.  But the battering rams are not shattering the houses of drug lords, but homes of individuals who may have their small stash of pot.  They aren't going after cartels, but people enjoying poker night.

Don't believe it?  Neither do most of us, because it is too horrendous to consider.

But there are a couple of truisms about this situation.  First, there is the supply of weapons.  Then there is the fact that we will pay for the toys, but not for the training.  And then there is the fact that the police have gone from those who live in the community and are hired to protect us, to those with too much firepower, too little training, and who believe that they need to be constantly vigilant, in order to protect themselves.

And of course, police violence like that going on in Ferguson, Missouri, won't be likely to happen in suburban white communities.  We have over the past several years, been fed racist attitudes that have allowed black teenagers to be targeted.  It may be that Michael Brown stole cigars from a convenience store, but maybe not.  He may have pushed the officer, but maybe not.  Whatever he did do, he was unarmed, and shot eight times.

This is not our system of justice.  This is a national corrosion of values, evident in "stop and frisk" and "papers, please."  Where guns are not just allowed but welcomed, because politicians and, yes, our courts, don't really have a clue about the second amendment but prefer to sow seeds of fear across the country, and quash state and individual rights to protect themselves through peaceful measures.  In fact, the second amendment has become somewhat like a Rorschach Test, reflecting just how power hungry and paranoid we are.

This time, though, there were journalists -- white journalists -- who got caught in the tear gas and the rubber bullets and the jailing.  It was a middle class, conservative campus in 1970 where the murders of four unarmed students forced the nation to look at its war on its young citizens.  I am hoping that the media, because members of its own were caught in the crosshairs of a militant police action, will pick up this fight.  Because we are looking at a future with tanks and assault weapons, where people are watched from cameras on the street corners, and are guilty until proven innocent, or maybe until killed. 

When Nanney Backs Down

This morning I read that the appropriately named Wendy Nanney, House representative from Greenville, had introduced a bill that would require bicyclists and moped operators to be licensed and insured.  "Hmph," I muttered, there goes Mama Nanney again.  I gave a wee bit of thought to what a boondoggle that would be for the insurance industry, one of the groups that our legislators take good care of here in South Carolina, and then went on to other matters.

Hours later the headline in The State informed that after great protest, Nanney had withdrawn the bill.

Now, let's back up a little here.  Wendy Nanney is the legislator that is pursuing with no less than religious zeal the bill that would prohibit abortions after twenty weeks.  She has brought all the power that the Bible and bad science can bear, and many of her partners in crime lined up to co-sponsor the bill.  It mattered not that scientists had proven that the "facts" of her bill were wrong.  And she cared not that women's health and medical care were being invaded and compromised by the requirements of the bill.  Wendy was out to save "lives."

Yet, when she looked out on the street and saw that bicyclists were being careless, and decided that it was her duty to write a law forcing them to, well, take a course and then pay for a license, there was such an outcry that she dropped the cause immediately.

So why are some "lives" more expendable than others?  Why would a woman making decisions about her own body be so much more important than a cyclist riding in a way that endangers themselves and puts others at risk?  In fact, Nanney points out that her bill would only require licensing for those fifteen or older.

Please, please explain to me why a child would not need the safety precautions that an adult cyclists requires???  This makes about as much sense as requiring a woman whose pregnancy is at risk to carry the pregnancy to term, while not making health care available for all pregnant women.

I worry about the mental health of many of our legislators.  It seems that they work so hard to prove their worth that their judgment fails.  And then they are rewarded with way too much power over us.

I also wonder that the Palmetto Cycling Coalition has more political clout than groups like the ACLU and the National Organization for Women.

Or it may be something else entirely.  After all, the South Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association was quiet while a bill was passed allowing guns in bars and restaurants.  While they claim that was because owners were split on whether they were in favor of the bill, many owners say they were not made aware of the bill.  Of course, the NRA has more clout with legislators than both the Restaurant and Lodging Association and the Palmetto Cycling Coalition (and throw in NOW and the ACLU).

Which must make you want to ask who has so much clout that Nanney and her buddies would tirelessly pursue abortion bans and personhood bills?

As with the NRA, we need to follow the money.  It's not the right-to-life groups, really, that are keeping these horrible bills afloat, year after year.  They are merely the very loud and committed spokespeople.  They are being controlled by groups like the NRA, groups like the American Enterprise Institute, groups run by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.  It may not seem like they are being controlled; maybe it is really just the Partnership from Hell.  But it amounts to the same thing.

The people with the money and power, who stand to lose some of that money and power if we unite against issues like living wage and health care, have learned that they can get followers to rise up and pledge their support for the candidates who will further their power agenda.  All they have to do is create a smokescreen of "moral issues."  Nixon did it with his "law and order" campaign.  Reagan's handlers realized that there were millions who could be turned to their advantage by pretending that the quest for power was a religious quest.

And today we have anti-abortion groups, anti-gay groups, anti-Moslem groups, all working to foment fear.  They support the candidates (and the candidates support them)  so that none of us can muster the strength or the dollars to fight the people who control the country:  big agriculture, pharmaceuticals, oil, Wall Street.  Fortunately for bicyclists, Wendy Nanney didn't think their lives were important enough to turn into a cause.

Bullies with Guns

I don't like going to the North Charleston Performing Arts Center.  I don't like having my handbag searched.  It seems that over the years they have evolved their search policy, and that it has become ever more ridiculous.

After 9/11, and with the certainty that the next attack would be on the Arts in Charleston, the search was for guns.  A few years ago, I learned that they were now searching for cameras.  Management explained that it was part of their contract with the theater company that was performing.  Hmm, I thought, I wonder what would happen if the New York stage began to demand confiscation of cameras from their audiences....

This year, with no other option than to submit myself to a search in order to see Arlo Guthrie, I ruminated for weeks over whether they still confiscated cameras, and did that mean that they also took away smart phones?  I never for one second entertained the possibility that they would have done away with the searches.

When I was approached at the door for the search and I asked what they were looking for, I was directed to a quite large poster board that was standing by the door, where some dozen articles of search were listed.  Dumbfounded, and having lived in Charleston long enough not to want to make a fuss, I glanced at the list, noted that it included something about water bottles and, farther down, two-year-olds, stuck out my large purse and submitted to a cursory search and walked away.

Later I did go read the sign.  Topmost was no food or beverages.  Yes they can look in your pocketbook and confiscate a bag of M & M's.  Farther down on the list, somewhere around number 5, was something like:  No bottles, cans or weapons.  And no, the two-year-olds were not confiscated, they just had to have a ticket.  And they could not be in your purse.  Although now that I think about it, I guess they could search your purse for your two-year-old's ticket.  And guns was hidden behind bottles and cans, and within the word "weapons."

So as I waited for the concert, I continued to fume about the unquestioned right of a theater to search my personal property.  This led to thoughts about the recently passed South Carolina law allowing guns in bars and restaurants.  As amazing as the fact that the response to gun violence was not just to allow more guns to be sold, was that our legislators had now given express permission for them to be carried in the most volatile scenario, that where there is alcohol.

What was circling my mind, though, was the compromise that the usually more level-headed legislators reached.  If a bar or restaurant owner did not want guns in their establishment, they could post a sign.  That sign had to follow precise rules regarding wording and font size, exactly what walls and how high it needed to be posted, AND include a precise picture of a gun, all spelled out in Section 23-31-235.  In other words, the law had more restrictions on the signage than on the weapons.

There is a lot of hot air about how the federal government infringes on the rights of business owners in South Carolina.  And yet our legislators were happy to accept such detailed rules regarding being able to refuse to serve people carrying guns.  And considered it a victory in the gun control fight.

It initially shocked me that two groups were not coming out in loud opposition to the law:  police officers and bar/restaurant owners.  But when I saw the sign at the Performing Arts Center in which the prohibition against guns was hidden under "bottles, cans or weapons," it suddenly made sense.

We are all being held hostage by the bullies with guns.  We need to tread carefully around them, because to enrage them may not be fatal (although it might) but would certainly make it harder for us to go about our business.  In the case of bar and restaurant owners, their association would not want to alienate this powerful group, because retribution by A.L.E.C. and the NRA, both of whom control our legislators, would be swift and painful.  Police groups would also face retaliation in the form of budget and jobs.  Those who post those precisely drawn signs risk the wrath of any gun bullies that may have patronized their business as well as many who do not.

And gun bullies are not afraid to rage against those that question their unfettered right to bear arms, because, after all, they are the ones with the guns.

Guns, Bars, Stupidity and Lies

As a result of the horrific shooting of children in Newtown, Connecticut in December, 2012, our SC legislators got right on it with a slew of bills to -- you got it -- allow more guns into more potentially dangerous places, like for example, bars.  We had to laugh when Rep. Mike Pitts sponsored the bill in 2013, and then watched with much less glee when the bill passed in the House.

Even I did a double take when I read his claim that "44 states are having no issues with people that do carry in" (which is shorthand for those of us who don't speak gun for bringing your gun into an establishment).

After having listened to quite a bit of NRA newspeak over the years, I decided to investigate this statement.  In fact, not having "issues" means states with no laws addressing bringing guns into bars.  Many of which don't allow guns to get as far as the parking lot, making carrying into a bar irrelevant.  They don't have laws because up to now it's been OBVIOUS that guns and bars are a bad idea.  So.  Let's go ahead and NOT assume that 44 states are inviting gun-toting folks into bars.

The rationalizations surrounding this bill are cretinous.  A gun is more dangerous locked in a car.  Well, I guess that assumes that some idiot is going to leave the weapon on the seat in full view, maybe with the window open a generous crack, or fully expects that the car is going to get broken into on a regular basis.

What I have to say to that is, you maybe should leave the damned gun at home.  Or if you don't have the common sense to hide the gun and lock the vehicle, you maybe shouldn't own a gun.

Here's another gem.  The gun-slinging citizenry would feel safer bringing that gun into that restaurant.  I don't know about you, but I haven't had the occasion -- yet -- to have to face down someone with a gun in a restaurant.  But I have to assume that a diner paranoid enough to need to carry a gun into a restaurant is NOT a person I'd want to imagine enjoying a meal in the same establishment as I, much less enjoy a meal with.

Now, our less smart brother to our west, Georgia, has already passed such a law.  Over there in Georgia, Jerry Henry of Georgia Carry ("The No-Compromise Voice for Gun Owners")  contends,

“We have had zero incidents of law abiding citizens being in any ‘O.K. Corral shootouts,’ as predicted by the gun prohibitionists.”

If by zero, Mr. Henry means several, I guess that would be accurate.  Any idiot, including Mr. Henry, could google Georgia bar shootings and come up with data contrary to his claim.  Okay, to be fair, they might not have taken place in the bar.  So these jackasses went into a bar, did some drinking, had a fight, and then had the good sense to go out in the parking lot to shoot it out.  And fortunately did not have to walk all the way to their cars to get their guns.

Which brings me to another point, besides the ones on our legislators pointy heads.  Not only do bartenders and restaurateurs now have the responsibility to card drinkers and monitor their behavior, requiring them to stop serving people who are drunk, often being blamed for allowing drunks to get in a car and drive.  Now they bear the responsibility for posting when weapons are not allowed AND making sure that if allowed, those carrying don't drink.  Except that some of our clever legislators who can't seem to draw a line without wanting to cross it, think it's just uncivil to not allow someone to walk into a bar or restaurant with a gun and not have one itty bitty drink.

And how about this:  the assumption through all this is that someone who is carrying is going to be trustworthy enough not to drink with his buddies, and if he's allowed to drink, will know when to stop, and if he doesn't stop when he should, will have the good judgment to not get in a fight, and if he gets in a fight, will not pull out his gun.  Until he gets to the parking lot.

To sum it up:  if I don't want to be drinking with Yosemite Sam, I should not frequent bars or restaurants that do not have signs posted prohibiting weapons.  If I do see a sign, I have to assume that the barkeep is going to be making sure nobody's tempted to carry.  And when people carry and drink, I will have to take it as a given that they will show good judgment and self restraint.

We all know good judgment and self restraint are characteristic of drinkers, and I'm just going to assume even more so if they feel the need to carry a weapon in when they stop for a burger and beer.

You know what the whole entire problem is with stupid laws like this?  The problem is that our legislators bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences.  They cannot be sued, they won't lose their jobs, they don't even have to question their faulty judgment.  And with groups like A.L.E.C. and the NRA keeping their purses fat, they are quite likely to get re-elected.

If this is important to you, and if you walk the streets and shop and eat in the establishments here in South Carolina and are a rational person, it probably is, talk back.

Our legislators do their best to ignore opposing (less remunerative) opinions, but they have email addresses that you can access at scstatehouse.gov.  Even better, they have Facebook pages.  Leave a public comment, or send a private message, or both.  Send out a tweet.  Write a letter to the editor, which I believe gets you the best bang for your buck.

And after all, aren't we really talking about the best bang for the buck?