Perhaps you've been missing The Daily Show as it's been on a two-week hiatus. I know, lately they're taking almost as many breaks as our US Congress. But fear not: the Texas State Legislature continues to offer can't-miss comedy in its place.
You hardly ever get the opportunity to read a blog post titled, Tampons don't kill people. Republicans do. So I would like to thank that great Texas blogging duo, Margaret and Helen, for alerting me to the latest comedy accomplishments of the Texas Legislature, in their work to rid the world of intelligent democratic debate.
On Friday, during their routine ransacking of women's handbags, security guards confiscated feminine hygiene products.
You are probably going to want to read that last sentence again. Go ahead.
Apparently, Texas lawbreakers -- I'm sorry, lawmakers -- were concerned that women might use tampons as projectile devices. I guess most members of the Texas lege don't have much contact with menstruating women and their hygiene products, and so thought that a maxi-pad hurled from the stands just might knock out a member of their august group.
Meanwhile, it is a-okay to carry a gun, unless, I suppose, you're a woman.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Friday, July 12, 2013
A Nation of Whiners
Harry Reid has finally decided to do something about Mitch McConnell's blocking of executive branch nominees. If you were watching C-Span yesterday, you got to see McConnell have a tantrum over -- are you ready? -- the fact that Reid called the meeting for Monday, at 6 p.m.
The Minority Leader of the Senate was upset because his members would have to show up early for their work week. This despite the fact that Reid could have called the meeting for Monday at 9 a.m., which is when the normal work-week starts for lots of us who are not members of Congress.
He then followed up that impressive argument by calling Harry Reid a "liar" and Obama's recess nominees "illegal." To which Reid defended himself by saying, "Am not." Not his finest moment, granted, but this is Harry Reid, and you have to be proud of him for just taking a stand, right?
The behavior of our republican officials prove the point that bullies are cowards and whiners. Their government jobs, big salaries and short hours, great health care and paid vacation and sick leave, and quite enviable retirement benefits, including the ability to use their contacts and influence for life, only make the whining more incessant.
The 2012 election season, with its highlight the Republican National Convention, was a showcase for bullies. These are the people who steal your lunch money and then when a friend gives you half their sandwich, knock it out of your hand and call you a crybaby.
Which is what they are also demonstrating in the battle over the Farm Bill. In essence, they are stealing our tax dollars for their buddies (and themselves) in Big Agra, while knocking the food stamp dollars out of the hands of the poor. And whining the whole time.
We should be better than this. And I'm talking about those who vote these characters into office. Those who bullied their way into the health care town halls of a few years ago, even shouting down a woman in a wheelchair. The ones who would have us spend our tax dollars to build a fence and pay for yet more border patrol but gripe about public school dollars.
Who are these people? We know them. They are misinformed and afraid they are going to lose whatever they have. They put their trust in the bullies, because the bullies yell the loudest, and point the finger away from them. The bullies provide a scapegoat.
The poor, women and children, gays, minorities, immigrants. What they have in common is not that they are destroying our country. What they have in common is that they are those not in power, they are the weaker among us. They are the groups that bullies feed on.
But the LGBT among us stood up and stopped being afraid of the bullies. The immigrants who live among us, whether legal or not, are standing up so that we can see that they are essential, and can no longer be picked on. Minorities will stop letting the bullies pit them against each other, and when they unite, they will be minorities no more.
Women are beginning to fight back. We are finding our heroes, like Wendy Davis. We are beginning to see that the fight against abortion is a red herring that allows the powerful to continue to gain wealth and power while we fight among ourselves.
And the poor? Thanks to the success of bullies like Mitch McConnell, more of us than ever have joined their ranks. Which means that when we fight back, we will be formidable.
The Minority Leader of the Senate was upset because his members would have to show up early for their work week. This despite the fact that Reid could have called the meeting for Monday at 9 a.m., which is when the normal work-week starts for lots of us who are not members of Congress.
He then followed up that impressive argument by calling Harry Reid a "liar" and Obama's recess nominees "illegal." To which Reid defended himself by saying, "Am not." Not his finest moment, granted, but this is Harry Reid, and you have to be proud of him for just taking a stand, right?
The behavior of our republican officials prove the point that bullies are cowards and whiners. Their government jobs, big salaries and short hours, great health care and paid vacation and sick leave, and quite enviable retirement benefits, including the ability to use their contacts and influence for life, only make the whining more incessant.
The 2012 election season, with its highlight the Republican National Convention, was a showcase for bullies. These are the people who steal your lunch money and then when a friend gives you half their sandwich, knock it out of your hand and call you a crybaby.
Which is what they are also demonstrating in the battle over the Farm Bill. In essence, they are stealing our tax dollars for their buddies (and themselves) in Big Agra, while knocking the food stamp dollars out of the hands of the poor. And whining the whole time.
We should be better than this. And I'm talking about those who vote these characters into office. Those who bullied their way into the health care town halls of a few years ago, even shouting down a woman in a wheelchair. The ones who would have us spend our tax dollars to build a fence and pay for yet more border patrol but gripe about public school dollars.
Who are these people? We know them. They are misinformed and afraid they are going to lose whatever they have. They put their trust in the bullies, because the bullies yell the loudest, and point the finger away from them. The bullies provide a scapegoat.
The poor, women and children, gays, minorities, immigrants. What they have in common is not that they are destroying our country. What they have in common is that they are those not in power, they are the weaker among us. They are the groups that bullies feed on.
But the LGBT among us stood up and stopped being afraid of the bullies. The immigrants who live among us, whether legal or not, are standing up so that we can see that they are essential, and can no longer be picked on. Minorities will stop letting the bullies pit them against each other, and when they unite, they will be minorities no more.
Women are beginning to fight back. We are finding our heroes, like Wendy Davis. We are beginning to see that the fight against abortion is a red herring that allows the powerful to continue to gain wealth and power while we fight among ourselves.
And the poor? Thanks to the success of bullies like Mitch McConnell, more of us than ever have joined their ranks. Which means that when we fight back, we will be formidable.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Not MY Son
As I watch bits and pieces of the trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting and death of Trayvon Martin, I can't help but imagine what this case would be like if this 16-year-old had been a white boy.
Like my son.
Here is a boy dressed in a way that would be weird for an adult but not for a teenager. He is walking around this neighborhood, and honestly, if he was not black, would anyone have questioned what he was doing there? So let's supposed he is white and walking around at -- for god's sake, 7 p.m.
Enter George Zimmerman, a wannabe cop, who makes all those racial assumptions about a black boy in his neighborhood and decides he needs to be followed.
Again, imagine this is my white 16-year-old son. He realizes he is being followed. He keeps walking but becomes ever more conscious that that is indeed what is happening. He begins to get scared. Trayvon Martin knows what can happen to a young African-American male that has wandered into the path of an angry and/or paranoid white man. My son might have been oblivious of being followed for some time. He might have imagined that this couldn't be happening, that it was his imagination.
But at some point, when the unknown man continues to follow him, my son would become frightened. He would try to contact someone. He would almost certainly refer to the person following him as crazy, followed by any other descriptive obscenity, which would emphasize his fear. When this nightmare continues, he realizes a full-blown panic and decides that he has to fight back.
In other words, my son, and Trayvon Martin, would stand their ground. Unarmed, they would use the weapon they have, and physically attack the stalker. And under Florida law, they would be in the right.
Unfortunately, he who carries the gun has lived to tell the tale. And if Trayvon had been a white youth, it is unlikely that the defense attorney would be mocking the young black woman who was the nearest thing to a witness for Trayvon, and pretending not to understand what she is saying in an effort to emphasize that she -- and therefore Trayvon -- are not like the members of the jury.
Of course, had it been a white youth killed that day, it would not likely have taken nearly six weeks for his attacker to be charged.
But here we are. The paranoid, angry and power hungry man who stalked an innocent young black boy, who refused to heed the police officer on the phone who told him to step down and stop his pursuit, is the one who is seen as "standing his ground."
Let's all step outside of the hype and media circus, and imagine this scenario with our own teenager, walking down the road, and being stalked by an unknown man.
I wonder if, in this angry and paranoid decade, the jury will be able to give, not Zimmerman, but Trayvon Martin, a fair trial.
Like my son.
Here is a boy dressed in a way that would be weird for an adult but not for a teenager. He is walking around this neighborhood, and honestly, if he was not black, would anyone have questioned what he was doing there? So let's supposed he is white and walking around at -- for god's sake, 7 p.m.
Enter George Zimmerman, a wannabe cop, who makes all those racial assumptions about a black boy in his neighborhood and decides he needs to be followed.
Again, imagine this is my white 16-year-old son. He realizes he is being followed. He keeps walking but becomes ever more conscious that that is indeed what is happening. He begins to get scared. Trayvon Martin knows what can happen to a young African-American male that has wandered into the path of an angry and/or paranoid white man. My son might have been oblivious of being followed for some time. He might have imagined that this couldn't be happening, that it was his imagination.
But at some point, when the unknown man continues to follow him, my son would become frightened. He would try to contact someone. He would almost certainly refer to the person following him as crazy, followed by any other descriptive obscenity, which would emphasize his fear. When this nightmare continues, he realizes a full-blown panic and decides that he has to fight back.
In other words, my son, and Trayvon Martin, would stand their ground. Unarmed, they would use the weapon they have, and physically attack the stalker. And under Florida law, they would be in the right.
Unfortunately, he who carries the gun has lived to tell the tale. And if Trayvon had been a white youth, it is unlikely that the defense attorney would be mocking the young black woman who was the nearest thing to a witness for Trayvon, and pretending not to understand what she is saying in an effort to emphasize that she -- and therefore Trayvon -- are not like the members of the jury.
Of course, had it been a white youth killed that day, it would not likely have taken nearly six weeks for his attacker to be charged.
But here we are. The paranoid, angry and power hungry man who stalked an innocent young black boy, who refused to heed the police officer on the phone who told him to step down and stop his pursuit, is the one who is seen as "standing his ground."
Let's all step outside of the hype and media circus, and imagine this scenario with our own teenager, walking down the road, and being stalked by an unknown man.
I wonder if, in this angry and paranoid decade, the jury will be able to give, not Zimmerman, but Trayvon Martin, a fair trial.
Monday, July 1, 2013
More from the Planet of Texas
I really, really think that Molly Ivins should be around to see what's going on in the Texas Lege. I had thought masturbating fetuses was about as dumb as a Texas republican could get, but then I heard about Representative Jodie Laubenberg, who testified that cutting the number of abortion clinics in the state would not be a hardship because in the case of rape, ER's are equipped with what you call your "rape kit" which cleans a woman out:
Really? Coming from South Carolina, I am reluctant to poke fun, but I get the opportunity so seldom.
I suppose it could be worse. Ms. Laubenberg might have imagined that a "rape kit" was a DIY item used by a rapist.
Really? Coming from South Carolina, I am reluctant to poke fun, but I get the opportunity so seldom.
I suppose it could be worse. Ms. Laubenberg might have imagined that a "rape kit" was a DIY item used by a rapist.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Texas' Fact Challenged Child Protection Act
They actually are calling it the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" over there in the Texas State Lege. But the testimony by the gaggle of heart-thumping supporters of forced pregnancy truly makes one wonder just how gullible they think we are.
In 2012 it was called the Women's Health Defense Act, and I just wonder why that bill didn't fly. So this year, much in the way the tobacco companies bought scientists to prove that smoking was not harmful, but without the scientists, the evangelists of the Texas Lege lined up this year to bemoan the pain that fetuses feel at 20 weeks in a bill comically calling 20 week old fetuses "pain-capable." Which sounds to me like an extra feature one could have installed for a small additional cost.
And as if this simple-minded, fact-free argument, that fetuses can feel pain, wasn't enough, Michael Burgess stepped up to the plate to argue that fetuses also feel pleasure, and that he has seen fetuses masturbate. Do we really even need to travel into the recesses of that mind?
This is not a funny topic. If you've read anything I've had to say about our legislators need to force women to carry pregnancies to term, you know I don't think it's funny. But there comes a time when the only way to address the absurd is to laugh at it.
Which leads me to Molly Ivins. She was the hero reporter for the Texas Observer, where she wrote on the Texas State Lege. She loved those lunatics, and she painted them with the clear strokes of reality, in their full crazy plumage. If you haven't yet, read the book of collected essays that brought her to national attention, entitled, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? The story of the title is worth the price of admission. Hint: It began with an article in which she had written of a local congressman, "If his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day."
So you can see why I'm wishing Molly were here now to enjoy and comment on the idiots in the Texas Lege. She would have a laugh riot over her favorite group of idiots as they continue to prove that they can indeed continue to get dumber.
In 2012 it was called the Women's Health Defense Act, and I just wonder why that bill didn't fly. So this year, much in the way the tobacco companies bought scientists to prove that smoking was not harmful, but without the scientists, the evangelists of the Texas Lege lined up this year to bemoan the pain that fetuses feel at 20 weeks in a bill comically calling 20 week old fetuses "pain-capable." Which sounds to me like an extra feature one could have installed for a small additional cost.
And as if this simple-minded, fact-free argument, that fetuses can feel pain, wasn't enough, Michael Burgess stepped up to the plate to argue that fetuses also feel pleasure, and that he has seen fetuses masturbate. Do we really even need to travel into the recesses of that mind?
This is not a funny topic. If you've read anything I've had to say about our legislators need to force women to carry pregnancies to term, you know I don't think it's funny. But there comes a time when the only way to address the absurd is to laugh at it.
Which leads me to Molly Ivins. She was the hero reporter for the Texas Observer, where she wrote on the Texas State Lege. She loved those lunatics, and she painted them with the clear strokes of reality, in their full crazy plumage. If you haven't yet, read the book of collected essays that brought her to national attention, entitled, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? The story of the title is worth the price of admission. Hint: It began with an article in which she had written of a local congressman, "If his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day."
So you can see why I'm wishing Molly were here now to enjoy and comment on the idiots in the Texas Lege. She would have a laugh riot over her favorite group of idiots as they continue to prove that they can indeed continue to get dumber.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Trial By Food Stamps
A Day In the Life
I was heartened to hear that some members of Congress had taken the "food stamp challenge" in order to experience life on the federally funded supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). While most of the members of Congress who took this challenge affirmed that eating on $4.50 a day was difficult, Texas congressman Steve Stockman was unconvinced.
No, he did not himself try to live on that food stamp budget, but had spokesman Donny Ferguson do it for him. Predictably, this dude said after two days that it was "a breeze." Well, I have to say that I have been fighting a losing battle with my weight all my life, and I can diet easily for two days.
So let me just say that I believe, Mr. Ferguson, congratulations, and you are now ready for the next level of the Poverty Game.
You work 40 hours a week -- that's 8 to 5 because you don't get paid for lunch. You are earning a lush $10.00 an hour, well above minimum wage, but with a spouse looking for work and two school-aged children your Food Stamp Challenge is exactly that. Your spouse drops you off at work with your one car in order to get the kids to school, limiting where and how often you shop for groceries. Nice that the big box stores are now accepting that EBT card but you can rarely make the trip.
It's also nice that there are incentives for buying fresh fruits and vegetables, but that means getting the kids to eat the fruit and finding time to make that salad and find palatable ways to cook that broccoli.
And when you get home it's 6:00 and the kids are tired and hungry, unless your spouse has bought a frozen pizza and a bag of cookies.
A glass of wine would be nice when you can budget it in, and sometimes a glass of wine just won't do the trick.
Hey, Ferguson? How about sharing with us what you eat (and drink) when you're not making that two-day sacrifice?
And Representative Stockman? You've argued with your wife over the need to get the car repaired, which you've been trying to budget in for a year now along with the increasing price of gas. And you've decided that that pain in your stomach will have to wait just a little longer before you can take the time off to see a doctor (You know after the co-pays and deductibles there are just going to be more costs and time off for tests and medications, if not appointments with specialists.).
Still feeling like you're living on "easy street?"
How about those looks you get from people like you when they see you load that cart up with those frozen pizzas? Did you know that SNAP doesn't cover the fried chicken at your supermarket's deli counter? So if you are in the mood for a little greasy relief, you are just going to have to cook it yourself.
And that birthday cake you bought with that EBT card? There are some including my own South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley that concur with you that life should just not be that easy for those forced to accept government dollars. Bake that cake your own self. Your kids may not have seen you all day, you're asleep on your feet and still have a load of laundry to do, but that bit of extra effort will make you a better person.
You may think you've taken the Food Stamp Challenge, Mr. Ferguson, but you haven't got a clue until you've done it day in and day out, along with all the other special experiences of living at poverty level in the US.
So perhaps you can stop feeling so smug, and perhaps you can pause a moment before you judge those whose lives are not quite so cushy as yours.
And don't forget, they may not pay a lot of income tax, but the taxes they do pay support your life on "easy street."
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Consistently Lindsey
While Jon Stewart and I were away (he's still gone, but I'm back), John Oliver had a bit to say about privacy. Of course, our own Senator Lindsey Graham, hot to beat out any Tea Party challengers in 2014 (you know who I'm talking about, Lee Bright), is the go-to guy on just about every issue that plagues our lawmakers. The biggest plague being our president.
What has been difficult for Graham, however, is when President Obama takes a sharp turn to the right. Being a man of rigid, if not good, Southern values, Graham is fearless in supporting any sacrifice of personal privacy in the name of national security.
Except one.
Here is our own Lindsey Graham, right around minute seven, summing up his position on privacy:
Let's hope that his 2014 Democratic challenger takes note of this little inconsistency. You know what they say about politics and strange bedfellows. The Tea Party just might not be as enthused about electronic surveillance of US citizens as Senator Graham.
What has been difficult for Graham, however, is when President Obama takes a sharp turn to the right. Being a man of rigid, if not good, Southern values, Graham is fearless in supporting any sacrifice of personal privacy in the name of national security.
Except one.
Here is our own Lindsey Graham, right around minute seven, summing up his position on privacy:
Let's hope that his 2014 Democratic challenger takes note of this little inconsistency. You know what they say about politics and strange bedfellows. The Tea Party just might not be as enthused about electronic surveillance of US citizens as Senator Graham.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)