The best argument against right-wing politics.

I had dinner with a friend last week who is training to be a member of the clergy, and since we had already hit the taboo dinner subject of religion, we touched on politics as well.  He told me that people always ask him which party he identifies with, and are very surprised to hear that he is a self-identified liberal.  His reason was this: 

Whether the mistake is legislative, civic, personal, secular, religious, in the home or on the streets, this is perhaps the most succinct and powerful argument I've ever heard to refute the incessant chest- and bible-thumping from conservative squawkers and the religious right.  The next time a right-wing fanatic (whether an anonymous Facebook commentator or a national lawmaker) starts spouting their hate- or restriction-filled rhetoric, ask them this question.  Ask them what would Jesus do?  If they respond that Jesus never sinned, remind them that he still hit his thumb with a hammer when trying to strike nails.

Republicans Take, Democrats Give.

I have been away at a conference for the last week and took some time off from the news to, well, cheer up.  As I sat down this morning and read through the unending litany of nonsense that the GOP has done in just the last 10 days, I came to this inescapable conclusion.  Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, whatever you want to call them, they are not legislating on the local, state or national level to preserve, provide and protect life, liberty, freedom and happiness for everyone, but to methodically strip away those preservations, provisions and protections to fit their own narrow definition of how we should be living and leading our lives.  In short, all I see are Republicans taking away.

You can share this with your friends, and rant and rave to the people who already agree with you and nothing will change because you are preaching to the converted.  Or you can take this message to your lawmakers and demand that they enact laws that strike back in kind to every restriction that the GOP lays down.  Signing petitions isn't enough.  Buying a few bumper stickers won't suffice (although it puts a few pennies in my wallet).  Even voting them out of office isn't enough.  The political platform of today's conservative electorate will not stop until they experience consequences just as severe as they are causing to others.

The hypocritical GOP war on healthcare

Today I visited the GOP website and the front splash is "Repeal Obamacare," showing a lawsuit of the people of the United States versus The Obama Administration.  The petition message reads: As the Republican Attorneys General from the twenty-six states challenging the constitutionality of Barack Obama and the radical Democrats' disastrous "ObamaCare" healthcare takeover prepare to make our case for liberty before the United States Supreme Court, I am proud to offer my pledge of support to these principled men and women working to safeguard our precious American freedoms.

I am so amused when I sneak onto Facebook and blog conversations among staunch conservatives and read their parroted missives from the likes of Rush and Fox News about how the Liberal Conspiracies have ruined the fabric of America.  I feel a little more indignant when this comes straight from the official mouth of the Republican National Committee.

The Affordable Healthcare Act (e.g. ObamaCare) was enacted two years ago, which is why both parties are making a scene: Dems are celebrating its passage and the GOP are flagellating because it has contaminated our purity of essence. You can tell which side of the argument I am on.  Here are just some of my arguments against the GOP's crusade to convince Americans that healthcare is wrong.  

1. First of all, grammar check for the GOP author: was the legislation radical, or were the Democrats who passed it? It was passed 219-212 in the House and 60-39 in the Senate.  Since 100% of the Senate Democrats and over 90% of House Democrats voted for it, the GOP has articulated that nearly all Democrats are Radicals.  Dear author of the petition: if you meant to say the legislation is radical, LEARN TO WRITE!!  Oh wait, educated people are liberal snobs.  My mistake...
2. Is the healthcare act disastrous?  Let's first talk dollars.  A quick check of the non-partisan OMB says that over 10 years, the statute could lead to a deficit reduction over 1 trillion dollars, with a longer-term deficit reduction around 0.5% of the GDP.   A more recent estimate from the CBO also suggests 50 billion dollars in savings in insurance subsidies.  Even if all of these are overestimates by a factor of two, we are still talking about HUGE savings to taxpayers.   In other words, deficit reduction and less taxpayer burden is disastrous to our country and way of life.  
3. Let's now talk impact to citizen health.  The CBO estimates that by 2019, there will be 32 million more Americans with healthcare.  By the end of 2011, the number of uninsured 19-25 year olds declined by almost 400,000. And just to ice the top of this cake, many small businesses started offering healthcare insurance for the first time.  Medicare medicine costs dropped by about 40% on average.  Again, more Americans with affordable healthcare coverage is going to destroy the fabric of our great country.
4. There is no rational argument to be made that health insurance doesn't save money.   
5. Do the statutes threaten our liberty and "precious American freedoms?"  The United States Consitution was enacted, in part, to "promote the general welfare."  How does one promote the welfare of citizens if they are unable to sustain an acceptable quality of life by maintaining reasonable access to medical care?  How does one enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if one must face financial ruin to cure treatable illnesses?  In short, how does keeping the population healthy diminish our freedom?  
6. Do "precious American freedoms" refer to keeping the government out of our houses and our lives so that we can all do as we please?  If so, then this is the great conservative hypocrisy: I can pass radically-intrustive laws telling you how to run your life, but you can't do anything that even risks being intrusive to me.  It is not only acceptable, but the sacred duty of a conservative to actively invade or restrict my life if I'm doing things they don't like (i.e. abortion control, access to contraceptives, prayer and creationism in school, just to name a few) while vigorously crying foul if the government even suggests that they do something, whether or not they like it.  Simply put, why is it right for the GOP to shove a medically unecessary probe up a woman's uterus but wrong to give everyone medically necessary healthcare coverage?
7. The litany of conservative hypocrisy does not stop there.  Imagine what would happen if Senator Reid stood up this morning on the Senate floor and announced a new task force to investigate ending unemployment insurance, social security, and food-assistance programs.  Would the GOP and all of its constituents be up in arms?  These are all socialized forms of federal assistance, where everyone pays in whether they like it or not.  Is the GOP vigorously fighting social security or unemployment insurance?  Every person who pays taxes on salary must pay into these through mandatory FICA contributions.  Are these programs "disastrous," created by unprincipled men and women, and threatening to destroy "our precious American freedoms?"  If these "entitlement" or "social-safety net" programs are good for America, then how exactly is a nationalized healthcare system dangerous?

What can we do to stop these ideological policies of "just say no" and "separate and unequal?"  It may really come down to a tit-for-tat series of laws like the REPRIMAND legislation that we are promoting.  Conservatives acting on their own, and the GOP in general, may not stop taking away our rights until it starts happening equivalently and in kind to them.  There have been a lot of arguments that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" through mutually-assured destruction but such a threat can also have a very strong deterrent effect.  Think of how well President Reagan's nuclear missile shield worked (whether or not you agree with what he did).  

If you are sick and tired of being sick and tired (to paraphrase Monty Python) please forward these ideas to your friends, and write your lawmakers urging them to consider what our REPRIMAND laws would accomplish.

REPRIMAND and women's rights–one image says it all

The image below shows an incomplete timeline of GOP and conservative-backed legislation and public nonsense centered on Women's Health and Reproductive Rights (if this is incomplete, what does a complete listing look like?).  How much of this would have happened if the REPRIMAND laws were in effect?  Would men across the country be up in arms if laws were passed requiring invasive and unnecessary medical probing of a man's anus?  Would men sit quietly if the law required them to pay at least half the costs of an unwanted pregnancy they caused?  Would majority-male legislative bodies so callously pass invasive transvaginal-ultrasound laws if men had to have equally-invasive procedures in exchange?  

If you don't think that tit-for-tat laws are necessary, just study the figure below, and ask yourselves what the coming years of the conservative "separate and unequal" agenda will bring.  Write your lawmakers and tell them enough is enough.  

On gun violence and Trayvon Martin

Sorry to jump on the bandwagon of obvious criticism and understandable outrage regarding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but it seems there are two highly unequal laws that allowed this to happen.  First, many states have very liberal gun ownership and carry laws.  You have to wince at the irony that most of these are extremely politically conservative.  Second, the "stand your ground" law gives you the right to use deadly force without trying to retreat if you are outside your house.

It isn't very difficult to find an overabundance of commentary on how dangerous these laws are.  Let's approach the issue instead from a question of equality.

On the surface, a state that allows carrying concealed weapons would seem to provide uniform privilege to all law-abiding citizens.  However, since not everyone exercises this right, anyone carrying a weapon is radically more lethal than most everyone around them.  What kinds of restrictions are placed on carry permits?  Since Florida is in the news, here is information from its Division of Licensing.  First, A Note From the Commissioner says:

Applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm for self-defense is a right of law-abiding Floridians. However, you must remember that a license to carry a weapon or firearm concealed on your person does not authorize you to use that weapon. Use of a concealed weapon or firearm is regulated by other provisions of Florida law. It is my hope that you will exercise your lawful right to carry a concealed weapon or firearm responsibly, properly, and safely.

Please note that the lawful use of the weapon is only expressed as a hope.  Seriously, just a hope???  I tell my children "I hope you don't hit each other" but they still do; fortunately a slap isn't very long-lasting, but does land them in time-out.  The state says "we hope you don't kill other people" and yes, if you do, you will probably land in jail, but that doesn't bring the other person back to life.  In any case, we grabbed an application here, and find the minimum requirements for a concealed-weapon permit are:

• You must be at least 21 years of age.
• You must meet the CITIZENSHIP and RESIDENCY requirements set forth in the law. 
  
• You must be able to provide a CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION from a firearms training class or other acceptable training document that evidences your competency with a firearm. 
  
• You must not have a DISQUALIFYING CRIMINAL RECORD or other condition that would make you ineligible for licensure. 
• You are required to be familiar with Florida law.

Note that you do not need to pass a test proving you understand Florida law, nor a psychological profile to ensure you are stable and safe enough to be entrusted with this weapon of death.   You just need $117, fingerprints and a visit to a pawn shop to have unfettered access to an instant killing machine.  Lest we say again, even if you are punished for breaking the law with your firearm, you can't bring your victim back from the dead!  Which returns us to the original point: allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms, whether concealed or in plain sight, makes those citizens lethal and deadly in ways that no other law-abiding citizen can be.  A person who can't afford a gun, or doesn't want to carry one, or whose religion prohibits it, should never find themselves in mortal danger because some people around them are packing heat.  There should be more between life and death than hoping the citizen gun owner keeps calm in a crisis.

The second issue is the extension of the "castle doctrine" to "stand your ground."  Over 30 states have some form of a castle law that says you can protect yourself from harm while on your own property without trying first to retreat.  You can shoot a person who comes through your front door to hurt you, rather than first trying to run away to safety and calling 911.  This permission to use of deadly force if you believe you or someone with you are in imminent danger is often argued as justifiable homicde.  Some states extend this right to protect yourself retreat and without fear of prosecution to your car, your business, or in the case of stand-your-ground, anywhere you stand.  Again, one can easily argue that these laws give everyone the right to protect themselves if they feel threatened, which provides equal protection to all citizens.

What happens when the state combines stand-your-ground with the right to carry a deadly weapon?  People die when they didn't need to.  This isn't a legal statement on guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.  It is much simpler: if these two laws had not been on the books, Mr. Martin would still be alive.  Chances are good that Mr. Zimmerman would be too.

Stand-Your-Ground and Carry Permits create a combination that has far too great a potential to take innocent lives to be considered safe for the general public.  They create an invasion into the rest of our rights to exercise life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  They must be changed.

Please, write your lawmakers and explain that the potential to use lethal force in public must only be given out under very special and much-more highly regulated situations.  Share this and ask your friends to do the same.  If you hear back from them, please let us know.

Reprimand the Creationists!

According to the NCSE, the Tennessee Senate has passed SB 893, which encourages teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."  This is thinly veiled legislation to promote the teaching of "alternative theories" like Creationism and Intelligent Design.  We will talk about the demerits of pseudoscience later.  For now, let's consider what would happen if a national REPRIMAND/Inequality law existed?  

Promoting religious beliefs in public schools is a clear violation of the Separation of Church and State, and you would think this would be enough of an argument to stop proponents of teaching religious dogma in public schools.  Even the briefest perusal of the principles of Intelligent Design make it clear that this is merely pseudoscientific wool on the wolf, but direct appeals to the public under the guise of science continue to lend legitimacy to anti-science legislation like the "monkey bill" in Tennessee.   

When a law inserts issues that belong in the church into the public schools, only a small portion of the public (namely, school children) are being subjected to this invasive legislation.  The REPRIMAND/Inequality law would require that Tennessee SB 893 have an equivalent provision in exchange.  For example, all houses of worship in Tennessee must give up their non-profit and tax-exempt (i.e. 501c3) status and be subject to all state laws regulating businesses.   

We can't reason with people who, by their very nature, do not want to listen to it.  Our political climate is about at the point where we can't stop people from promoting invasive or repressive laws by writing petitions and op-eds either.  The only solution seems to be to strike back in kind and use their own kinds of laws against them.  Please share with your lawmakers that "an eye for an eye" is likely to be the only way to stop the Conservative warpath to social ruin.

Help Missouri Rep. Stacey Newman stop the Rush Limbaugh Statue

Missouri Representative Stacey Newman and a number of her colleagues co-sponsored an anti-vasectomy bill in the state legislature to combat the anti-women legislation being proposed by the GOP.  We wrote to applaud her work, and received this response, and request, to help stop the House Speaker Steve Tilley from erecting a Rush Limbaugh State in the Capitol.  Please see her message below and help fight this GOP/Conservative nonsense?

Thank you so much for your email – it was a joy to hear from you, even if you don’t live in my district. I am just thrilled!

It means a lot that you took the time to find me and write about this horrendous anti-woman agenda that has taken hold of our state legislatures. As you can tell, we progressive women legislators have had enough.  I am COMMITTED to keep at this fight with my colleagues all over the country but we need people like you, encouraging us on.

I ask a favor - Can you help us out in Missouri  by signing the following petition? Over 20,000 have to date and we need Speaker Tilley’s office bombarded.

A Rush Limbaugh Statue in the Missouri Capitol? No. Freaking. Way.

You’re not going believe this:  Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley is planning to honor Rush Limbaugh in the Missouri Capitol’s “Hall of Famous Missourians” this year. 

Tilley's response to the media today: “I’m sure there are people who are not fans of Rush Limbaugh, but I’m not one of them and I get to make the decision.”

Please  help us STOP this nonsense by signing a petition to Speaker Tilley, Gov. Nixon and other legislators –http://progressmissouri.org/norush AND by calling Speaker Tilley’s office – 573.751.1488.

Sincerely,

Rep. Stacey Newman

Missouri 73rd House District

Capitol:

Missouri State Capitol

Room 101K

Jefferson City, MO  65101

573.751.0100

Stacey.Newman@house.mo.gov

District:

6340 Clayton Road #206

St. Louis, Missouri 63117

314.781.7707