Voter ID Laws Reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws

Lately there has been a lot of talk from the conservative media about voter fraud concerns, and how illegal immigrants in the US are going to reelect Obama unless they are stopped.  This has created a demand from the public that the government crack down on voting laws.  Interestingly enough, the Republican National Lawyer Association has found less than 400 cases of voting fraud in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS.  Statistically speaking, that is less than 1% of votes cast each year and does not affect results at all.

The problem with the proposed voter ID laws has been embodied in the recent legislation passed in Pennsylvania.  Take Vivitte Applewhite for example, a 93 year old woman who has voted in nearly every election for the past 60 years. She marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and now has become ineligible to vote.  She fought for equality as a US citizen for her right to vote, and now it has been taken away from her by the same type of discriminatory legislation she fought against with Dr. King.  This time, it's not because of the color of her skin, but because statistically she is more likely to vote for Obama than for Romney.  

The Jim Crow laws were passed in the late 1800s and continued through the mid 1900s.  They allowed for states to administer literacy tests and collect poll taxes which would disqualify minority groups from casting their vote.  The tests were not administered to everyone, were not graded equally, and were not standardized.  The poll taxes were put in place mainly to disqualify black voters, but also poor whites. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made poll taxes and literacy tests illegal, abolishing what was left of the Jim Crow laws.  Pennsylvania's  new legislation aims to disqualify voters in the same way that the Jim Crow laws did, but this time it is to disqualify many who may vote in opposition to interests of Pennsylvanian Republican leaders like Mike Turzai and Tom Corbett. 

Mike Turzai openly admitted that by passing new voter ID laws, it “is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Nearly 720,000 LEGAL citizens immediately lost their right to vote the day the legislation was signed.  Another nearly 1.5 million people are at risk of losing their ability to vote.

In a recent article by Juan Williams of FOX News, I read this:

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimates that more than 5 million Americans could be prevented from voting this November. They estimate that one in ten Americans do not have the necessary identification.  

Their latest Brennan report shows that more than 10 million eligible voters live “more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office.” Many of these voters do not have public transportation readily available to them and many of the offices that issue the IDs are only open during weekdays for limited hours when most people are working.
The report also says that copies of birth certificates needed to get these ID scans cost between as much as $25. It shows how marriage licenses, which are required for women whose birth certificates only show their maiden name, can cost up to $20. Adjusted for inflation, those fees are more than the poll tax in many Southern states during the Jim Crow era. Poll taxes have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor people.

I've heard people say, "How hard is it to get a state ID?" Well, for poor people, it's hard because you don't have time, transportation, or money to purchase any documents you may have lost.  And then you have to wait for those purchased documents to get to your house to go back and register for your ID.  It is a sure-fire way of eliminating the illegal vote, if it exists, but it also eliminates the poor working man vote.  And that is not something Dr. King would stand for.

See http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-06/opinion/opinion_hair-dianis-voting-rights_1_pennsylvania-photo-id-new-voter-id-law-turnout-and-registration

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/gop-fictional-voter-fraud-charges-aim-to-keeping-democrats-from-voting/

Passing the Buck Since 1994

I read a very interesting article about a letter faxed to an old employee of Bain Capital, signed by Mittens himself.  He claims he didn't cause the layoff of this employee and the shut down of the entire business he worked for because, he had "left Bain in 1994" and so was not responsible at all for what happened.  Sound familiar?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-21/read-the-fax-romney-sent-to-a-laid-off-worker



And apparently the guy has a whole box of stuff he's kept (against his wife's wishes because of the clutter) that details a lot of stuff that happened while he worked  under Bain's watchful care.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-02-23/mitt-romneys-box-of-kryptonite

If You're Upset About The Quote "If you've got a business...you didn't build that", Then You Must Be A Moron

You've seen it, I'm sure, the "If you've got a business...you didn't build that" Obama quote. It's plastered all over Facebook and more than likely, in your inbox. You've probably even re-shared it with your friends, enraged by the audacity of our president to make such a condescending claim. But did you read or hear the rest of his speech? That quote, in context, is clearly not the message depicted in two sentences:

"There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

The point he's making isn't that small business owners don't exist or that they don't deserve the credit for being successful. In fact, he said the opposite, "we succeed because of our individual initative". If you want to make something happen, it's up to you to make it happen.  If you're successful, you should be proud of your success.  The point he's making is that there were people in your life who helped you get where you are today. Either you went to school and learned how a business works, you had a mentor, you had people who invested money into your start-up business, you had parents who taught you, you read books, etc. No one is successful without having the knowledge to get there, and no one is born with knowledge in their brain of how to start a business. It is learned through study or experience. Someone wrote the textbook that you read, or taught you how it's done. 


You cannot wake up one day and invent quantum physics without having studied or been taught the underlying principles that allow you to arrive at the conclusion. Maybe it was Einstein's teacher who told him he would never amount to anything that pushed him to be inquisitive, fueled with creativity, and broadened his horizons just to prove his teacher wrong.  He wasn't born with the theory of relativity in his head, there were people and prior knowledge out there that aided him in the discovery that ultimately, with his individual initiative, reached. 

By posting a meme like that you are displaying your own ignorance. It shows that you, just like FOX and CNN, only read the first line of a report and make false judgments, or like a million other people on Facebook, you can't think for yourself. I don't care if you like Obama, or Romney, or Ron Paul; HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT. If you have such a strong opinion about a topic, you had better know the topic before you preach it. 

Just because I disagree with what you may believe does not mean that I think you're wrong. If you feel strongly about something, wonderful, tell me why you believe that so strongly. If you do not have a logical explanation with real facts to support your belief, than you make it very difficult for me to respect you or your opinion. I can't respect your insistence on having a voice when you insist on being an uniformed puppet of propaganda. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Besides, this speech has been given before:

Obituary for Eh, Steve?

Eh, Steve? (2010 - 2012) passed away peacefully in his sleep July 15, 2012. Survived by Jake, Hannah, and his neighbor Dennis the Hermit Crab. Eh, Steve? lived in his small aquarium located above a rolltop desk in Jake's bedroom. Eh, Steve? was friendly and inviting to everyone, and loved to have company. Whenever someone walked into the room, he swam happily over to greet them.

Eh, Steve? enjoyed tutoring Jake in such subjects as accounting, corporate finance, statistics, and business law. He enjoyed listening to music, and his favorite band was Jimmy Eat World. He loved life, and he loved his friends. Eh, Steve bravely battled a common fish disease for over a year, with dry peeling scales and torn fins. He responded positively to medication that successfully restored his fins to their natural length and beauty, but ultimately could not conquer the illness or the side affects of the treatment.

Eh, Steve?, no fish has, nor will ever be loved as you were. You made the sun shine on a rainy day, and warmed our hearts in the dark of night. On behalf of those of us privileged to have shared the past year and a half with you, you will be greatly missed.

The Problem With Today's News

"The media's the most powerful entity on Earth.  They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power.  Because they control the minds of the masses." Malcom X

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier. " H. L. Mencken

Last Thursday I witnessed what news networks are really all about: being the first to report, regardless if the facts are there.  I don't doubt that each network had prepared days in advance multiple different stories and scenarios to begin with, and as the facts came in, would tailor their stories to the facts.  But the Supreme Court issued a document nearly 150 pages long explaining the ruling, so how could anyone decipher the complexities of the bill and its explanation of existence in less than a day?

I personally have lost all faith in news networks.  Too often we forget that the news, like sitcoms, is driven by ratings, advertising, and feedback from focus groups.  Each network has some kind of angle to every story, because  "good television" is more important than honest straightforward facts.  "Good television" allows for opinion to be masqueraded as fact.  

Networks know they can play on our competitive nature because "good television" evokes emotion in the viewer.  No matter what happens in Washington, you will turn on the news to see a "win for the Republicans today" or "a devastating blow to the Republican party" depending on the channel.  Thursday was a montage of contradicting statements of whether Obama's campaign hung in the balance or if he would gain momentum, depending on the each channel's chosen side of the political spectrum.  It's almost as if there is an invisible scoreboard of victories and losses that drive the stories that are aired like a countdown to the superbowl. Chalking up wins or a losses skews the way Americans view current events.

The media  also plays on our innate sense of justice and injustice.  When a crime is committed the villains and victims are immediately identified by the networks.  The recent case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman comes to mind.  Depending on which channel you watch, Zimmerman was a racist, cold-blooded killer, or Martin was a dangerous hoodlum who had it coming.  The only people who know what transpired that night are Martin, Zimmerman, and God, and yet Americans pretend to know "what really happened."  And before you know it, what the murder case is "really about" is racism, class, and status.

Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, and O.J. Simpson are good examples of media villains.  Blood for blood was demanded by the reporters, but in a court of law there was not enough evidence to convict any of them.  By digging up enough information to create a colorful past, the media convinced viewers that these lowlifes were definitely capable of murder.  Nobody knew who Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox were, but over night they were hated by all America because we were convinced they are murderers.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but it is unethical to report opinion as news.  The way news is reported today is shameful.   In the eyes of the netorks, Americans are too stupid to understand current events and come up with our own opinions.  We're told exactly how to feel, and we're blinded from seeing the more important issues.  It shouldn't be about which political party comes away with a win, but did we as Americans win?  In the case of healthcare, did Americans overall win from the Supreme Court Ruling?

Maybe we are too stupid to come up with our own opinions.  We like be told what we want to hear because we're afraid the truth may evoke a sense of duty to act and remove ourselves from complacency .  We like to pick villains and heroes.  We like to see our heroes as invincible, and we're willing to overlook our heroes' flaws because we like to hate the villain more than we like to love our hero.  We like to point fingers and pretend we are experts on everything.  We enjoy telling others why they're wrong, especially when we know that we're wrong.  We enjoy believing that underneath every executive decision lies a bigger cinematic plot bubbling to escape.  

Each political debate in which we engage is about who's a better debater, when it should be what is the right answer?  The media preaches only black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and those are defined completely different by each station.  Deep down, I think Americans know that there are not two solutions to every problem, but that's what we've decided to accept.  

There's Always Money in the Banana Stand

Recently congress voted on raising taxes on student loans.  Not surprisingly, every Republican voted in favor of doubling the interest rates on student loans.  More and more politicians are telling the public that we have to get more kids graduated from high school and more kids graduating college.  Most people can't just "ask their parents to help them out" like Mitt Romney said last month, because most people don't have millionaire parents who can pay for their kids to go to Ivy League schools.  There is a big push for getting kids to go to school, and yet education gets the ax every time the budget is tinkered with.

Conservatives are all about protecting the rich.  Studies have shown that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs and the money does not "trickle down."  Conservatives say that kids should work and put themselves through school.  I work two jobs and still can't afford to go to a State University without help from loans.    With unemployment high, college grads can't start paying back their loans after graduation because they can't find work. Conservatives will say, "take a risk, be an entrepreneur, that's the American dream, build something from nothing."  How can you do that if a bank won't give you a loan because you're in debt up to your eyeballs from that degree that was supposed to put you ahead of the competition?  Where's a broke college grad going to get the capital to pay for all the start up costs?  What assets can they put for collateral for a loan?  Their bike?  Their laptop?  Their worthless economics textbooks?  From the $100 dollars they were able to save over four years?

College students, if they work, generally do not make more than $20,000 a year.  It's tough to get buy on that much money in our society.  After rent, rising gas prices, food and other bills, you can't put much away for a rainy day.  Why are the poorest in the country being penalized for seeking higher education?

Mitt Romney announced a plan that would save on average $250,000 dollars in taxes for millionaires.  That's a lot of money that could go towards grants and scholarships for kids who can't afford college.  Obama gets criticized for standing up for keeping interest rates low on student loans as appealing to the younger demographic and fishing for votes.  Maybe he is, but his platform has always been to help those who can't help themselves.  Some call that socialism, but I believe the real word for that is charity.  Not charity in the sense of "I feel bad because you're in poverty, here's some money", charity in the sense of love for humanity and the desire for improvement.

Obama's not the first person to be criticized for wanting to feed the poor, clothe the naked, or comfort the sick and the afflicted.  It's ironic to me that the majority of Conservatives consider themselves "Christian Conservatives" when their scorn for the poor is so vehement in their political views.  Views like increasing spending for military so that we can send boys to unnecessarily break the most serious commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill and reduce spending money to Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself don't make much sense.

$250,000 a year is nothing to a guys like Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, or Tiger Woods.  They wouldn't miss it for sure.  So why not take that tax money and build a future for aspiring kids who are otherwise doomed to work at Walmart checkout counters or make careers out of selling frozen bananas for $3 a piece?  Why should a bright young inner city kid have to work at a Buckle when there is money out there that could give him access to the tools he needs to cure cancer, spur innovation, or become the next DaVinci or Michelangelo?  The hardships of these economic downturns don't hurt millionaires, so why can't they give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar?

There is a double standard in Washington.  Politicians dangle the carrot of education just outside the reach of the poor, and if it's attained, give them the stick with all they've got.  Meanwhile, the rich are sitting on the beach of their private island working on a tan and thinking which department they will lay off, dropping costs and driving up profit margins for a window long enough for them to sell their stock options for an $11 million gain (like the CEO of Viacom did last year).  That money will surely trickle down into some offshore bank accounts to help his grandchildren never experience the horror of working up a sweat.

Politicians need to stop telling kids to "dream big", because what is a dream?  It is an alternative reality that cannot be attained.  Our best interests are sitting on the back burner while earmarks and superpacs pave the road to the United Corporations of America so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.   We are all God's children, and we all deserve a chance to reach our full potential in the life He has given us.  Our destiny should not be dictated by those who have been more fortunate.  Compassion is not a weakness, and  charity is not a sin. Hating your brother and sister is.

Public Persona Ted Nugent Actually Just Toned-Down Version of Private Self

Rocker/hunter Ted Nugent's "public persona" is "actually just a toned-down version of his private self," said an anonymous source close to the lunatic.  "He's actually quite bonkers."

We asked our source to describe a typical day in the life of the Nuge, and the details have been provided in full:

"Well, Ted usually wakes up and puts on a fresh pair of American flag briefs first thing.  Then, he polishes his AK-47, his shotgun, or whichever gun he fell asleep cuddling with the night before.  After smiling at himself in the mirror for ten minutes, he does a work out routine in his basement.  His routine consists of punching live dogs or cats (or whatever animals the shelter had the day before) while they swing upside down from the ceiling while singing along with Madison Rising's "Right to Bear".  For breakfast, he skins the animal that survived his workout routine the longest, and eats the raw meat like cereal using Jack Daniels for milk.  He often visits his grandkids and plays games like Hide and Seek and Kill.  It's a game where he fills a gun with blanks and tells the kids to hide, then when he finds them he empty's his clip while screaming "Death to Socialism" while the children scream.

"If he's not out brutally murdering innocent animals in the woods, he likes to google himself and update his wikipedia page.  He also enjoys the "Nuge Luge", which is a downhill racer that he constructed.  He rides down hills while playing a custom built guitar that has a shotgun barrel for the neck, and shooting it off in time with his crazy guitar licks blasting from an amplifier attached to the back (at the base of a giant American Flag with his face embroidered out of stars).

"For quiet time, he enjoys watching Tarantino films and eating a bucket of lizards. He's been known to put one particular scene of Hitler getting shot in the face on a slow-motion loop while he falls asleep.  For not-so-quiet time, "Nugebag" (as some family refer to him) enjoys throwing parties in the woods where he rehearses his post-apocalyptic survival strategy in the event of a successful full-scale Democratic re-election scenario.

"For dinner, he enjoys eating real American food from Panda Express.  Frequently, he eats with two 9mm handguns as chopsticks, fills them with blanks, and discharges them while he eats 'for the thrill of it'.

"I once asked him while visiting his house for a birthday party, 'Uncle Ted, do you carry a firearm with you at all times?'  to which he responded, '(Expletive) Yeah! How else will I be able to protect myself from the (expletive) socialists and commies when they come to burn my first edition signed copy of The Wealth of Nations, or my reel of Birth of a Nation? Or my Zeppelin shirt that Ozzy spit on during a Sabbath concert?'

I also asked him if he takes any medication for his paranoia, to which he responded '(Expletive) no, I don't take pills, I channel my fear and aggression into hunting.  Nothing calms the soul like thoughtless killing.'

"How would I describe him?  If you took Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Charlie Sheen (if he cared about politics the way he cares about cocaine and women) and combined them into one monster, that embarrassing representation of humanity would still pale in comparison to the atrocity that he is.  I don't know how to describe him.  He's the Nuge."

The Wizard of Gop

Once the candidates reached the Emerald City, they asked the Wizard of Gop for what they wanted most.  Rick Santorum asked for a brain, and once received, he dropped out of the race.  RoboRomney asked for a heart so he could relate to the common man, but the Wizard knew it would fry his circuit board and gave him a hug instead, hoping he could feel some kind of emotion.  Next, the cowardly Newt politely asked for a loan, a slice of cheesecake, and a photo op with the Wizard of Gop.  As soon as the photo was taken, the Newt charged the Wizard $50.  Last of all, the Wizard turned to Michelle Bachmann and said, "I thought we already sent you home."  Ashamed, she clicked her feet together and disappeared.  A little dog at his feet began to yap, so the Wizard looked down and said, "Ron Paul, I almost forgot you were still here, what are you so worked up about?"  But the dog just wanted to make noise.

North Korea Missile Crises?

When North Korea announced they would be launching a missile, people panicked.  Newsreporters tried to convince the elderly that World War III was looming on the horizon.  There was speculation that it wasn't a satellite, but a warhead.  Japan threatened to shoot it down if it got anywhere near them.  And then it fell apart minutes after launch.

My first reaction was relief.  If it had been a warhead, North Korea would have been wiped out, problem solved.  Since it didn't, we know they didn't have intentions of attacking anyone (yet), and it probably was a satellite.  I saw a report today on CNN that took a different take on the situation: how embarrassing for North Korea, they can't even launch a missile.  Woah, let's not piss off a country that has no reservations wiping out the western hemisphere.  The last thing we need to do is rub salt in their wounds. 

My elementary school was named after the space shuttle Columbia, which completed several successful missions before disintegrating into thousands of pieces upon reentry in 2003.  And lets not forget the Challenger Shuttle disaster, and Apollo 13.  Who are we to criticize anyone for launching stuff into space when we've lead the world in horrible space exploration disaster stories. 

Can't we just be relieved that they didn't launch an attack?

Health Care Debate

Recently, I was written a ticket for four hundred dollars because I was driving without insurance.   For second time offenders the ticket is $1000 and for each offense afterwards you pay $1000.  Hypothetically, let's say I decide I'm a safe driver and don't want to pay for insurance (this was not why I was uninsured).  Let's also say that I get pulled over once every other month.  Since it's my first time, that's $400 plus $5000 for the other five times I'm pulled over during one year.  That's much more than the premium for one vehicle for one year. Say I don't get pulled over at all, but I get in a wreck.  On top of the damage or replacement of my car that will have to come out of pocket, what about the damage to the other car and/passengers? And the fines on top of the traffic violations?  Is that worth not having insurance?

The way that "free market" health insurance is set up now is to provide health care to healthy people who can afford it.  One would think health care should be for the unhealthy, but that's not the case.  Unless you work for someone who has group insurance, pre-exsisting conditions make it impossible to have affordable private insurance.  And even if you do have group insurance, the price for health care continues to rise, causing employers to cut benefits and raise deductibles leaving you with hardly any coverage at all.


If you are a cancer survivor who lost work due to your illness, and you can't afford Cobra, you will never be able to receive (or afford) private insurance.  People don't choose to have cancer, arthritis, or any other "pre-existing condition".  So why should the free market decide they should just suffer or die? Why is that their call?


Those who oppose health care reform have never experienced first hand the difficulties and stress of not "qualifying" for insurance.  Eating right and exercising can't prevent cancer, arthritis, alzheimer's, or damage done in a car crash.  Those things aren't preventable. 

Those opposed to helping care for others because "it's their health and their responsibility" pay very small amounts in medicare and social security taxes that go to help those who can't help themselves.  How is that any different? They say that the penalty for not having health insurance is a tax. The four hundred dollars I paid for the ticket was not a tax, and isn't it the same thing? How is the government mandating health insurance any different than mandating liability auto insurance?

If the government provides an affordable alternative to private or group insurance and says everyone must have it, that is no different from being required by law to have car insurance other than the government is helping you get insurance when you are denied.  Currently, insurance companies can deny claims after you get sick.  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies would no longer be able to do that.

Most religions teach charity and compassion for the unfortunate.  So why do so many insist on being selfish, judgmental, and insensitive to those less fortunate than them, victims of circumstance who want the same opportunities as those who take them for granted?

If it wasn't for the Affordable Care Act, my wife and I would not have insurance, along with thousands of Americans across the country.  We are not free loaders of the system.  My wife and I work two jobs each while I finish school.  Even if my wife could qualify for insurance, we can't afford it.  Before the Affordable Care Act we had to pay out of pocket for prescriptions and doctor's visits.  We were only making about $18,000 a year combined, so those expenses added up to a large percentage of our income.  For now, we have insurance, and are very grateful for it.  I can only hope now that the Supreme Court can see that it has helped thousands of people like us across America.  Sure, the Act as it now stands is far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Our inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When someone dies because they can't afford insurance or pay hospital bills, the government has taken those rights from them.