142.2 - Clown Award: Gov. Scott Walkalloveryou

Clown Award: Gov. Scott Walkalloveryou

Now for one of our regular features, the Clown Award. given for meritorious stupidity

First, though, I have an update on a previous award. On what you might call my Christmas show a few weeks ago, I dubbed Rep. Jack Kingston, a GOPper from Georgia as the Grinch because he was just so morally offended by the fact that some poor kids could get free lunches at school and how they should have to sweep the floor or something to earn that lunch because there's no such thing as a free lunch, you grade-school moochers!

Well, it turns out that there is such a thing as a free lunch - if you're Jack Kingston.

An investigation by WSAV-TV in Savannah, Georgia, found that over a three-year period, Kingston and his staff charged nearly $4,200 in meals to his congressional office. He didn't pay for those meals, the taxpayers did.

Mr. Kingrinch also racked up nearly $4,300 of free meals paid for by third-party groups and over $24,000 in total expenses on Congressional junkets in that time besides expensing over $145,000 worth of meals for campaign events. I wonder how many of the attendees at campaign those events had to sweep the floor.

But getting to this week's Clown, this too is a repeat offender. It's Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkalloveryou, who double-dipped in the stupid.

On MSNBC last Monday, he declared his opposition to raising the minimum wage - something favored by 2/3 of Americans, including even half of GOPpers and 46% of "strong conservatives" - but he's against it because, quoting him,

Jobs that involve the minimum wage are overwhelmingly jobs for young people starting out in the workforce. The last thing you want to do is have fewer young people (working) at a time when unemployment rates are still way too high for teenagers going into their 20s.

In other words, minimum wage jobs are filled mostly by teenagers taking their first job at a McDonald's or something.

Bzzzt! According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, teenagers only make up a quarter of those making no more than minimum wage. Even giving him every benefit of the doubt and including everyone up to age 24 (and assuming all those people are at their first job) still brings the figure to just over 50%. Meanwhile, those aged 25-64 make up 47% of minimum wage workers.

Oh, but he wasn't done. On Sunday, on CNN, he said

I don't know about you, but if I was out of work, I'd be looking more than twice a week for a job. I'd be looking for work every day except maybe today. I take Sunday off to go to church and pray that I could find a job on Monday.

Yeah, if only all those unemployed people, all those struggling people draining their savings, emptying their bank accounts, relying on food kitchens to feed their families, losing their homes, if only they would just actually try to get a job, if only they'd just pray to get a job, they'd be fine. So if they're out of work, well, it's obviously their own fault and so why should we care.

As a quick footnote, he talks a lot about job retraining to deal with unemployment - despite have cut state aid to technical colleges in Wisconsin by 30%.

Scott Walkalloveryou is such a clown.

Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/12/1393-grinch-story-gopper-and-free-lunch.html
http://www.wsav.com/story/24411962/congressional-free-lunch
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-senate-candidate-expensed-thousands-in-free-lunches
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/most-back-minimum-wage-hike-policies-to-address-the-wealth-gap/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/13/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-minimum-wage-jobs-are-overwhelmi/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/05/sotu.01.html
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132130383.html?page=1

142.1 - Good news: same-sex marriage might come to Oklahoma

Good news: same-sex marriage might come to Oklahoma

I going to start, as I like to do when I can, with some good news. Good news was rather hard to come by this week, but at least there was this.

On Tuesday, January 14, US District Court Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages violates the US Constitution.

Kern found that the ban is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children.

It's the second time in a month that a federal court has found that a state-level ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution despite having being written into the state's constitution, the other case being that of Utah. States, these courts found, correctly, cannot deny rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.

Unlike Utah, however, there will be no window of opportunity for same-sex couples to marry. There, the judge refused to stay his order, with the result that some 1,300 couples married before the Supreme Court stepped in to stay the order pending an appeal - and before, following that stay, the state of Utah cruelly said it would not recognize those 1300 marriages. Because of the Supreme Court action in the Utah case, Judge Kern stayed his order while Oklahoma appeals.

So there is no immediate benefit - but it's another body blow to the bigots and buffoons. More than 30 states have passed laws or state constitutional amendments restricting marriage to a man and a woman but the constitutionality of all those restrictions is now in question.

By the way, a related bit of good news on this is that even though Utah won't recognize those 1300 marriages, the federal government will.

Attorney General Eric Holder made the announcement on January 10. The decision means same-sex couples married in Utah will have the same federal status as those who were wed in those places where same-sex marriage is now legal, including for purposes of benefits, immigration, and taxation.

Apparently, based on this and previous cases, this is an area where the White House is determined to be on the right side of history.

By the way, if you want an example of those buffoons I mentioned, it develops that Indiana is considering a proposed state constitutional amendment to - you guessed it - ban same-sex marriage. The state already bans marriage equality by law, but the Hoosier hooeys want more.

In fact, more than more. The amendment would not only ban same-sex marriage, it bans civil unions and domestic partnerships and denies recognition to such marriages or unions performed in states where they are now recognized.

In fact, it's so broadly worded that supporters have had to come up with a second bill to explain the first one - to say, for example, that it would not repeal human rights ordinances or ban employers from offering benefits to same-sex partners. Which shows how well they thought through what they were doing - which is especially amusing since proponents of the amendments say that the debate about it has been going on for several years. And in all that time it never occurred to them how poorly it was worded?

Just as a quick footnote, among the opponents of this amendment is the Eli Lilly company, which says it would hurt the company’s ability to attract top talent, pointing out that younger people really don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.

One last thought before I leave this: One of the last-ditch arguments raised against marriage justice is that the legal definition of marriage is a matter for the states. By that argument, aren't they saying that Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage, was wrongly decided and that states should be free to ban interracial marriages?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579312571060439510?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303754404579312571060439510.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/indiana-gay-marriage-ban_n_4589943.html
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/13/indiana-house-panel-hearing-proposed-gay-marriage/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

Left Side of the Aisle #142

This week:

Good news: same-sex marriage might come to Oklahoma
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579312571060439510?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303754404579312571060439510.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/indiana-gay-marriage-ban_n_4589943.html
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/13/indiana-house-panel-hearing-proposed-gay-marriage/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

Clown Award: Gov. Scott Walkalloveryou
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/12/1393-grinch-story-gopper-and-free-lunch.html
http://www.wsav.com/story/24411962/congressional-free-lunch
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-senate-candidate-expensed-thousands-in-free-lunches
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/most-back-minimum-wage-hike-policies-to-address-the-wealth-gap/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/13/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-minimum-wage-jobs-are-overwhelmi/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/05/sotu.01.html
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132130383.html?page=1

Unintentional humor: the NSA and privacy
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/bernie-sanders-national-security-agency-spying-101726.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/bernie-sanders-nsa-letter_n_4597978.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/30/glenn_greenwald_the_nsa_can_literally

A personal aside
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/01/1413-point-of-personal-privilege-atheism.html
http://mortongrove.suntimes.com/news/pledge-MGC-10312013:article
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-03/news/ct-pledge-of-allegiance-donation-met-20131203_1_joseph-lampert-donation-veterans-group
http://mortongrove.suntimes.com/news/pledge-MGC-12262013:article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/park_ridge_niles/ct-niles-pantry-atheist-donation-nnw-tl-0116-20140109,0,7121202.story
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/an_atheist_finally_finds_someone_to_take_his_money/?source=newsletter

Outrage of the Week: GOPpers and Dimcrats combine to ruin Iran negotiations
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-iran-20140113,0,341164.story
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fworld+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+|+World%29
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/22/how-close-is-iran-to-nuclear-weapons/
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-white-house-iran-nuclear-deal-20140110,0,1510706.story#axzz2qPIgizZf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-iran-sanctions-bill-nears-filibuster-proof-majority/2014/01/10/33efdaee-7a2c-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html
http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/iran/articles/analysis_of_faults_in_the_menendez-kirk_iran_sanctions_bill_s_1881/
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-white-house-iran-nuclear-deal-20140110,0,1510706.story#axzz2qPIgizZf
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/10/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/senate-reaches-veto-proof-majority-on-iran-sanctions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid_to_Israel#Military_aid_and_procurement

Net neutrality neutralized
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rule/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/fcc-open-internet-order-struck-down/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-14/verizon-net-neutrality-victory-means-more-fighting-to-come
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/11/whats-fair-is-fair.html

Weekly reminder

This will very likely be my last weekly reminder. It has been drawn, as per the link each week, from a project overseen by Slate.com that tracked media reports of gun deaths. Slate has now, sadly, shut the project down. So this will, I expect, be the last for me, too. Just read it and weep.

As of December 31, at least 12,042 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 98 of them in Massachusetts. Put a different way, that is more than a Newtown a day, every day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.

And I will note one last time that the reason "at least" is emphasized is that the majority of gun deaths are by suicide. Suicides are rarely reported in the media and when they are, the means are often omitted.

Using the most recent estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for yearly deaths by guns in the United States, it is likely that as of January 8, 2014, roughly 35,871 people have died from guns in the US since the Newtown shootings.  That is, on average, 92 people dead by gun. Every. Single. Day.

Guns are a scourge.

141.9 - Outrage of the Week: when religious freedom crosses the line

Outrage of the Week: when religious freedom crosses the line

Before I run out of time for this week's show, let me get to our other regular feature, the Outrage of the Week.

Only hours before it was to take effect on January 1, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blocked implementation of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that would have required some religion-affiliated organizations to allow their employees access to health insurance that includes birth control.

The Affordable Care Act sets minimum standards for health insurance plans. One such standard is that group insurance provided by an employer as an employee benefit must include a range of preventive care, free of charge, including contraception.

The Obama administration put together what's called an accommodation which enables religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and social service groups that oppose birth control to not pay for it. Instead, the law requires the insurers or the health plan's outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage and creates a way to reimburse them. It's still available as part of the plan, but the employer is not in any real sense providing it, the insurer is.

However, a Denver group called the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged said that even filing the form to declare themselves a non-profit qualifying for the religious exemption was a violation of their freedom of religion. Why? How? Because it would allow the insurance company to provide the contraceptive coverage. Sotomayor's order applies to the nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups that use the same health plan, known as the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.

I have to tell you, I really do find this utterly outrageous. It's one thing to argue that religious freedom means you as an employer should not have to pay to provide contraceptive care; it's quite another to say you can deny it altogether, even if not paying for it, regardless of whether your employees share your beliefs or not.

That is, it's one thing to say religious freedom means you shouldn't have to pay for coverage that violates your conscience; it's quite another to say religious freedom means you can actively prevent your employees from getting that coverage, to go from "I shouldn't have to do it" to "I should be able to keep you from doing it." At that point, you have crossed the line from religious freedom into theocracy. And it is an outrage.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/catholic-groups-court-halt-health-care-law-21385807
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/politics/justice-sotomayor-blocks-contraception-mandate-in-health-law.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0

141.8 - Clown Award: John McCain and Lindsey Graham

Clown Award: John McCain and Lindsey Graham

And talking about Iraq leads us straight to the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.

This time around, it's a joint award: The winner of the big red nose this week is the right-wing's favorite foreign policy bromance, that darling duo of doofuses, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

At a press conference last week, the two tried to blame the fighting in Anbar on - well, I don't have to tell you, do I - they wanted to blame it on Barack Obama.

Why? Because he withdrew US forces from Iraq on schedule in 2011. That withdrawal created a "vacuum" that is being "filled by America's enemies" creating "a threat to US national security interests." The White House said that the US is sending weapons to Iraq, but the pair suggested that's not enough, that the US should do a lot more.

Now, remember first that the withdrawal was based on an agreement reached between Iraq and the Bush administration in the fall of 2008, before Obama was even elected, and that, as I commented at the time, the Obama administration did everything it could to pressure the Iraqis to let some troops stay.

Let's remember next that there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq - not even the "affiliate" form of ISIS - before the US invasion, which our clowns both supported. We didn't prevent the existence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, we created it.

Then let's remember that during the time there were US troops in Iraq, Sunni fundamentalists controlled parts of Falluja on three separate occasions, twice in 2004 and once in 2007-2008. If we couldn't prevent that when we had 140,000 troops in the country, what makes them think we could do that now with the maybe 10-20,000 that would have stayed?

But, who cares? History is for wimps, not real men like Lindjohn.

But here's the real reason they get the award this week: At that same presser, they also slammed the administration's handling of the civil war in Syria, saying, as they have in the past, that the US should do more to assist the insurgents. In the past, they have even advocated direct US military action.

Well, one of the strongest rebel groups in Syria, one of the strongest among the rebels that Lindjohn would have in power in Damascus, is the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria: ISIS, the exact same fundamentalist Muslim group that they say is creating "a threat to US national security interests" by being in control of parts of Falluja. They want the US to "get involved" more with Iraq to fight the same people they want to send US forces to support in Syria.

Truly, truly, these guys are champion-level clowns.

Sources:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/lindsey-graham-falluja.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/04/mccain-and-graham-slam-obama-for-iraq-violence/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/06/wars-and-not-rumors-of-wars.html

141.7 - Update: Iraq

Update: Iraq

Reference to tribal fighters brings us to our third update: Iraq.

Since last week, it's become clear that the main forces fighting the Iraqi government in the province of Anbar are from an Islamist group known both as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIS or ISIL. The media has taken to referring to - I'll call them - ISIS as "affiliated with" or "connected to" al-Qaeda, which is true only in the sense that it's a self-description by ISIS, one just symbolic since it's clear the group doesn't take orders from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda.

Anyway, in the wake the anger sparked by Iraqi President Nouri al-Makiki's ham-fisted arrest of a Sunni lawmaker and break-up of a nonviolent protest camp ISIS seized and held the centers of the cities of Falluja, Ramadi and Khalidiya.

However, a joint operation by Iraqi troops and local police pushed ISIS out of Khalidiya and much of Falluja, although parts of the latter city and Ramadi remain in ISIS hands.

And now, significantly, Iraq's military and some Sunni tribal leaders have struck a deal under which government forces will withdraw to the fringes of Anbar while Sunni tribal forces and police undertake the job of driving ISIS out of the cities. The deal is significant first, because it removes government forces, always suspect in mostly-Sunni Anbar because the government is controlled by Shiites, second, it politically and ethically isolates ISIS, who are now seen not as fighting the government but as fighting fellow Sunnis, and, third and most importantly, it means that the risk of outbreak of outright civil war which I feared could come has been cut dramatically.

This doesn't change the fact that there is a humanitarian crisis developing in Anbar. Over 250 people have been killed, the worst fighting in years, at least 13,000 families have fled Falluja alone, and at least 5,000 have fled the province altogether, while there are fears that the continued fighting will prevent refreshing of stocks of food, water, and medicine, which are beginning to run out in areas.

Sometimes the only good news is that it's not as bad as it might have been - but sometimes that's all you get so you take it.

Sources:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/iraqs-sunni-civil.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/iraq-falluah-al-qaida
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iraq-forges-new-strategy-defeat-fighters-201418142439592864.html

141.6 - Update: South Sudan

Update: South Sudan

Next update is about South Sudan. I don't expect in the future I'll be spending a lot of time on this because I know it's something that, quite frankly, a lot of you won't care about except in a broad philosophical sense. And while it's something I think you should know about, I also realize that it's not something you can do a lot about. Even so, I do want to give this update.

Peace negotiations, if you can call them that, have opened between the government of President Salva Kiir and rebel forces lead by former Vice-President Riek Machar - with (please try to contain your surprise) each side wanting the other to make the first move.

The government rejected rebel calls for an immediate release of prisoners, political supporters of Machar, which the government accuses of being involved in a coup against Kiir. Meanwhile, Machar, whose forces have taken the city of Bor and are reputed to be on the way to the capital city of Juba, is saying that groups calling for an immediate ceasefire are "jumping the gun," an attitude often taken by whichever side feels it is on the offensive.

The UNHCR, the UN agency dealing with refugees, reports that the conflict, which is only three weeks old, has already displaced 189,000 people. The map to the right gives some indications of the numbers involved.

Although the fighting has mostly been along ethnic lines, the fact is it appears at root to be more a matter of political power than ethnicity. Put another way, it's another example of tribal fears and hatred being exploited for the benefit of the powerful.

Same as it ever was. Which is the saddest part of all.

Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-southsudan-unrest-idUSBREA0607Y20140107
http://www.voanews.com/content/south-sudan-ex-vp-backs-agreement-to-end-violence/1823826.html
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/06/this-map-drives-home-how-bad-things-are-getting-in-south-sudan/

141.5 - Update: Utah and same-sex marriage

Update: Utah and same-sex marriage

I've got some updates on a few things I talked about last week.

First up is Utah. As I imagine you heard, the Supreme Court has put a stay on the ruling that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal Constitution.

The stay, which allows the state to refuse to issue any marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is to stay in place until the 10th Circuit Appeals Court issues its own ruling on the case.

The case is on a fast track: The first briefs from the state are due on January 27. However, no date has been set for oral arguments and it could easily be months before a decision is handed down. In the meantime, the place that only banned polygamy and plural marriages because it was a requirement to become a state but now wants to enforce "traditional marriage" can throw same-sex couples who got married during the interregnum back into the black hole of discrimination as the governor declares the state will not recognize same-sex marriages performed in that time.

The state's request to the Supreme Court for the stay was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor, for reasons unknown but which I suspect was a desire to avoid any flak, turned the matter over to the entire court, which issued an unsigned order, which technically tells us nothing about the justices' views on the issue: the decision may have been unanimous or it may be that the dissenters just chose to not file a written dissent.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/utah-gay-marriage_n_4548931.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57357406-78/court-utah-state-stay.html.csp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Utah#Polygamy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/utah-gay-marriage_n_4562488.html

141.4 - Point of personal privilege: drugs

Point of personal privilege: drugs

Okay, the other thing, the other topic not high on my personal list of priorities but about which I do have a clear opinion, has to do with drugs. This is sparked, obviously, by Colorado's legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

First things first, it's obvious, even tacitly admitted by our so-called leaders, that the "war on drugs" is and has been a miserable failure that has been of benefit only to the corporations that build and privately run prisons while needlessly branding tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, as criminals.

But now Colorado has legalized weed. Washington had already done so but is still in the process of establishing legal dispensaries.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised. The nation as a whole has gone through a dramatic change of heart on the issue. As recently as 2005, the Gallup poll had over 60% of the public opposed to legalizing marijuana. But the latest poll, from this past fall, has 58% now favoring it.
Advocates of legalization see possibilities for legalization, based on state-level polls, in 14 more states and the District of Columbia over the next few years.

Again, it's not high on my list of priorities, in fact, most - not all, but most - of my references to drugs on my blog have been to the "war on drugs" is being used to strip away Fourth Amendment rights. However, I have favored the legalization of marijuana for most of my adult life, so I'm pleased by the recent news.

I don't favor the legalization of all drugs; I think we can legitimately ban the sale of substances that have demonstrated serious dangers - remember, my generation was the one that came up with the slogan "speed kills" and yes, I'm looking at you, tobacco and alcohol industries - and I think we can place some restrictions on the sale of marijuana to minors. Still, I do admit to being quite pleased by being able to say that marijuana legalization is something that is coming, it is happening. And I think we'll be the better for it.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/legal-weed-next_n_4557583.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/legalizing-marijuana-washington-state_n_2249238.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

141.3 - Point of personal privilege: atheism

Point of personal privilege: atheism

I'm going to spend a couple of minutes talking about two things that I don't normally talk about here. These are two subjects that while I have opinions and convictions on them, they don't rank high on my personal list of political and social priorities, so I don't devote a lot of time to them. But I do want to discuss them briefly.

The first has to do with religious belief - or, rather, the lack thereof.

I'm an atheist. Again, it's not something I talk about a lot, it's just what I believe, what I'm convinced is true, and that's that. I've been an atheist almost my whole adult life after a gradual shift in my thinking that took place over the course of several years. And while it is, again, what I am convinced is correct, and while I have personally known too many people who were trapped by their religious belief into a life of suffering to accept religious belief as a path for all, I also say that I have personally known too many people for who their religious belief provided a foundation for a life of courage, decency, and justice to deny it as a path for all.

The point here is that as an atheist, I am a member of a minority community that actually is the target of prejudice. Surveys cited in a recent study out of the University of British Colombia have shown that of a list of 10 characteristics, being an atheist is the only one where a majority of Americans will openly admit that they would not vote for such a person for public office on that basis alone, even if they were otherwise qualified. Another study found that atheists are the group that Americans would most disapprove of their children marrying. Still another found that atheists are regarded as "criminally untrustworthy" to a degree comparable to rapists.

You can chalk the extremity of those results up to what prejudices people are willing to admit to in a survey, but the raw figures still remain.

What prompted this is an article in AlterNet including what the author felt were the five most notable anti-atheist related news stories of 2013. And I wanted to mention one, because this, for some reason, this is the one that always gets me when it comes up.

It turns out that endurance swimmer Diana Nyad is an atheist, which I didn't know. She said that she sees no contradiction between her atheism and her ability to experience awe, or in her words, “to weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity.”

Well, Oprah was having none of that. "Well, I don’t call you an atheist then." That is, because Nyad could experience awe, well, she just couldn't be an atheist. Atheists have to be cold-hearted rationalists with no room for wonder.

Bull. I am constantly awed by nature, the world, the universe, the existence, all around me. The incredible complexity of it all, the astonishment of the interactions.

Try this: Look out your window at the ground - or the snow, if it's covered. Think about what's involved in seeing that, and think about it in every detail.

Think about the nuclear reactions in the heart of the Sun which produce a photon and the repeated atomic-level interactions by which it moves to the surface of the Sun, taking a million years to do so. Think about it propagating out as an undulating electromagnetic wave traveling at the speed of light, think about how even at that ultimate speed, it takes over eight minutes to get to Earth, think about the electromagnetic and chemical reactions as it moves through the atmosphere to strike the ground.

Think about the chemical and atomic reactions at the ground or the snow or the grass, whatever it is you're looking at, that resulted in it being reflected with a particular energy while other photons are absorbed, then it traveling again, another wave, to your eye and then think about the way the light is focused by the lens of your eye, about the biochemical reactions at the retina generating the electrochemical signals to your brain and to the astonishment, the amazement, the wonder, of your conscious awareness of what it is you are seeing, its shape, its color, even, thanks to binocular vision, its distance.

And even that doesn't begin to completely cover it. All natural processes, the laws of physics combined with three-plus billion years of evolution, not an act of a god involved. But you don't think that's just awesome?

Oprah, shove it.

Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/02/believe-it-not.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2007/05/numbers-game.html
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-worst-high-profile-attacks-atheism-year-how-oprah-time-magazine-and-supreme-court-justice

141.2 - Bad-news-good-news: guns

Bad-news-good-news: guns

Another bad-news-good-news deal has to do with guns.

The bad news is that on January 6, US District Judge Edmond Chang ruled that the city of Chicago's ban on the sale of guns within the city limits is unconstitutional.

Chang said in his ruling that he understood Chicago enacted the gun sale ban with the aim of safeguarding its residents, calling that "one of the fundamental duties of government." He even acknowledged "[t]he stark reality facing the city each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun." However, he said,

on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

The reference to "self-defense" is particularly depressing, as it indicates that at least some lower courts are embracing a wide view of the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions of 2008 and 2010, respectively. Heller was the first time in US history that the Supreme Court somehow dug out of the Second Amendment an individual right to self-defense, in fact found it to be a meaning and a purpose of the Second Amendment. That had never happened before and now it's being quoted in lower court decisions. Really depressing.

The suit in question was brought by three Chicago residents and, significantly, the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, eagerly anticipating a whole new market.

It wasn't a total loss: Chang delayed the effect of his ruling to give the city time to appeal and, importantly, emphasized in his ruling that the issue was the fact that the ban was total, including even gifts among family members. He specifically left the door open for the city to regulate in some way "short of the complete ban" and many elected officials and community activists are already considering ways to do that. And, at least for now, the city's ban on possession of assault weapons, which was not involved in the suit, still stands.

But the true good news on this, is, first a week before Chang's ruling, US District Judge William Skretny upheld most of New York state's toughened gun control laws, which were adopted in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

The laws banned large-capacity magazines and the sale of some semi-automatic rifles. Skretny said those provisions are constitutional because they're related to achieving an "important governmental interest" in public safety. The only part he struck down was a provision that banned having more than seven bullets in a legal 10-round magazine, calling the number "arbitrary."

And second, that day before that, the New Jersey state Supreme Court rejected a challenge to two of that state's tough gun control laws requiring that people show a "justifiable need" and "an urgent necessity ... for self-protection" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court found that New Jersey has a "well-established record" of controlling firearms and can place strict requirements on people seeking concealed-carry permits.

Two final quick points here: One, it shows the "script" the mass media is following on this issue - the script* being a framework established for a storyline into which all future stories must fit - that you likely heard more about the Chicago case striking down gun laws than you did about the New York and New Jersey cases, upholding them, combined.

And two, NJ Gov. Chris "Is it 2016 yet?" Christie continues to say he supports all kinds of gun control measures - but his Attorney General refused to defend the two laws that were challenged here.

Footnote: This obviously was done before "Bridgegate" blew wide open. I suspect the governor's middle name is going to be changed to "Is it over yet?"

Sources:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9384626
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0107/Chicago-gun-laws-rolled-back-again-US-judge-strikes-down-ban-on-gun-stores-video
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/01/07/chicago-officials-say-they-must-continue-to-curb-gun-access-despite-ruling.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/new-york-gun-control_n_4525108.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/chris_christie_declines_to_defend_nj_gun_laws_sparking_criticism.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/christie_not_defending_nj_gun_law_in_states_highest_court.html

*So far as I know, this idea of "the script" originated with Bob Somerby, who I think in general is a holier-than-thou twit, but I also think "the script" is one of sharpest tools for media analysis around.

141.1 - Bad-news-good-news: employer credit checks

Bad-news-good-news: employer credit checks

Okay, a little yin-yang to start the week off. A couple of bad news-good news deals.

First of the bad-news-good-news bits is that it is becoming common for employers to demand that you let them run a credit check on you before they decide about hiring you. A recent study by the organization Demos cited a recent survey of human resources professionals which showed that nearly half of employers check an employee’s credit history when hiring for some or all positions.

And it's not limited to high-level management positions: Quoting the Demos study,

even a brief look at a popular job listing website reveals that employers require credit checks for jobs as diverse as doing maintenance work, offering telephone tech support, assisting in an office, working as a delivery driver, selling insurance, laboring as a home care aide, supervising a stockroom and serving frozen yogurt.

The credit reporting industry obviously has a financial interest in convincing employers that paying for credit reports is a good, even necessary, self-defense measure against employee theft or fraud. The trouble is, that argument doesn't wash. Industry PR flaks will insist that "living beyond one's means" is a red flag for potential employee theft - but as anyone living in the real world can tell you, being in debt or having a troubled credit history nowadays has little if any connection with "living beyond your means." It's far more likely to have a connection to something like long-term unemployment or a health crisis - or, as it happened in my family, a health crisis that lead to long-term unemployment.

In fact, a representative of TransUnion, one of the major credit reporting companies, admitted that they “don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.”

In other words, it's all a waste of time and money. So why do employers do it? Some because they fall for the industry BS. Some because it's an easy way to winnow down the field of applicants that doesn't require them to actually make decisions or do any thinking. And some do it because they can, because it's a way of demonstrating their power over you, their ability to make you submit to their demands for the sake of having work.

Whatever the reason in a particular case, the end result is that the practice is not only racially discriminatory, because people of color are disproportionately likely to have problems with their credit scores, but, as Demos put it, it

create[s] an untenable Catch-22 for job seekers: They are unable to secure a job because of damaged credit and unable to escape debt and improve their credit because they cannot find work.

The good news here is that there is some push-back. Six senators, lead by Elizabeth Warren, have introduced the Equal Employment for All Act, would make it illegal for employers (except for national security jobs) to require that job applicants disclose their credit history.

Warren called credit checks "one more way the game is rigged," a "game" where relatively common life events such as a divorce, an illness, or a period of unemployment will have a much greater negative impact on the credit score of a middle- or lower-class person than on that of a rich one.

She also said that the act is "about basic fairness" and that people should be able to "compete for jobs on the merits, not on whether they already have enough money to pay their bills."

Warren has no illusions either about the chances that her bill will pass or that, if it does pass, it will benefit a large number of people. And yes, the number of people who are affected is relatively small. That doesn't make the practice any less heinous or the push-back against it any less a good place to stand.

Sources:
http://www.demos.org/discredited-how-employment-credit-checks-keep-qualified-workers-out-job
http://www.demos.org/
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Discredited-Demos.pdf
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/elizabeth_warrens_bold_new_crusade_keeping_employers_out_of_your_credit_history/
http://www.demos.org/publication/problem-employment-credit-checks-why-america-needs-senator-warren%E2%80%99s-equal-employment-all
http://www.care2.com/causes/should-credit-scores-be-fair-game-in-the-job-hiring-process.html

Left Side of the Aisle #141

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of January 9-15, 2014

This week:

Bad-news-good-news: employer credit checks
http://www.demos.org/discredited-how-employment-credit-checks-keep-qualified-workers-out-job
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Discredited-Demos.pdf
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/elizabeth_warrens_bold_new_crusade_keeping_employers_out_of_your_credit_history/
http://www.demos.org/publication/problem-employment-credit-checks-why-america-needs-senator-warren%E2%80%99s-equal-employment-all
http://www.care2.com/causes/should-credit-scores-be-fair-game-in-the-job-hiring-process.html

Bad-news-good-news: guns
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9384626
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0107/Chicago-gun-laws-rolled-back-again-US-judge-strikes-down-ban-on-gun-stores-video
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/01/07/chicago-officials-say-they-must-continue-to-curb-gun-access-despite-ruling.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/new-york-gun-control_n_4525108.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/chris_christie_declines_to_defend_nj_gun_laws_sparking_criticism.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/christie_not_defending_nj_gun_law_in_states_highest_court.html

Point of personal privilege: atheism
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-worst-high-profile-attacks-atheism-year-how-oprah-time-magazine-and-supreme-court-justice

Point of personal privilege: drugs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/legal-weed-next_n_4557583.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/legalizing-marijuana-washington-state_n_2249238.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

Update: Utah and same-sex marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/utah-gay-marriage_n_4548931.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/uncertainty-in-utah-as-appeals-process-plays-out-over-gay-marriage.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57357406-78/court-utah-state-stay.html.csp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/utah-gay-marriage_n_4562488.html

Update: South Sudan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-southsudan-unrest-idUSBREA0607Y20140107
http://www.voanews.com/content/south-sudan-ex-vp-backs-agreement-to-end-violence/1823826.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/06/this-map-drives-home-how-bad-things-are-getting-in-south-sudan/

Update: Iraq
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/iraqs-sunni-civil.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/iraq-falluah-al-qaida
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iraq-forges-new-strategy-defeat-fighters-201418142439592864.html

Clown Award: John McCain and Lindsey Graham
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/lindsey-graham-falluja.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/04/mccain-and-graham-slam-obama-for-iraq-violence/

Outrage of the Week: when religious freedom crosses the line
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/catholic-groups-court-halt-health-care-law-21385807
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/politics/justice-sotomayor-blocks-contraception-mandate-in-health-law.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0

A head's up

I mentioned a couple of days ago that the video of Left Side of the Aisle #140 would be delayed because of the storm.

It's up now. But to avoid - or perhaps to create - unnecessary confusion, I posted it to where it normally would have appeared, that is, on January 1 and before the posts on the individual items on the show.

Put another way, the video, for those of you who would like to see it, is at this linky-thing here.

Hope the year is treating you well so far. Remember, reactions to things here are invited, comment is encouraged, but comments that are simply personal slams on me or another commenter will be deleted without hesitation. Say something substantial or stay silent; be relevant or be reticent.

(Yeah, I know, a very forced alliteration but I happen to like alliteration. By the way, does anyone recall the term for the case of alliteration where a series of words begins with the same vowel sound, such as, for example, "each eager eagle?" I don't think assonance is it because assonance can occur anywhere in the words and alliteration typically involves the sound at the beginning of the words. I do remember the term was dubbed "apt alliteration's artful aid," but I don't recall the actual term. Help?)

Weekly reminder

As of December 31, at least - and without including suicides - but at least 12,001 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 98 of them in Massachusetts.

140.8 - Outrage of the Week: Judge William Pauley

Outrage of the Week: Judge William Pauley

Which leads nicely into our last bit for this week, our other regular weekly feature, the Outrage of the Week.

At the same time I told you about Judge Richard Leon's declaration that the NSA phone spying program was "significantly likely" to be  unconstitutional, I also told you about Judge William Pauley in New York City, who also expressed concern about the collection of phone metadata during a hearing on lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that challenged the constitutionality of the NSA program. I noted that he hadn't issued a ruling, but had said the hearing gave him a lot to think about.

Clearly, as it turns out, thinking was not on his agenda.

On December 27, Pauley issued his ruling.  He dismissed the suit in a written opinion that essentially was a rehash of the government’s arguments, one so shoe-licking that it must have left the spooks giggling like schoolgirls.

Pauley declared that "The effectiveness of bulk telephony metadata collection cannot be seriously disputed," and said it despite the findings of a 300-page report issued a couple of weeks before his ruling, a report compiled by a panel of legal and intelligence experts who were appointed by The Amazing Mr. O to examine the program. That report found that:

The section 215 telephony meta-data program [referring to Section 215 of the grossly-misnamed Patriot Act, the provision used to justify the program] has made only a modest contribution to the nation’s security ... and there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome would have been different without the section 215 telephony meta-data program.

Judge Pauley either didn't know about that report - perhaps his judicial chambers are actually a cave with no access to the outside world - or he just didn't care, so eager was he to swallow government claims. He even claimed that the program - which, let's not forget, in the judge's own words, “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from or within the United States” - he claimed the program not only is necessary and works, but only works because it is massive and so enables the spooks to, and he actually used these words, "connect the dots." He even whipped out an already-stale anecdote to suggest that the program, had it been in place, could have prevented 9/11.

But what was truly astonishing about Pauley's ruling is how brazenly - and I use the word deliberately - how brazenly he embraced the contention that the government almost always follows the law and quickly self-corrects when it doesn’t. Put another way, he was asserting that the spies need no oversight, that we can rely totally on their self-regulation, and we should just leave them alone to get on with it. For example, Pauley said NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander was being “crystal clear” when he responded to charges that the agency was mining data from phone calls by saying "We’re not authorized to do it. We aren’t doing it." Apparently, the rest of us are just supposed to say “Oh, okay. Forget we mentioned it.”

It is hard to imagine a more credulous - no, a more ignorant of reality - judge than William Pauley. He and his decision are both outrages. Still, Steven Rosenfeld must be happy.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?hp
https://www.aclu.org
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/this-week-mass-surveillance-wins.html?src=recg
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/929267/review-group-exec-summary-and-recs.pdf
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/19/white_house_advisors_vindicate_snowden/

140.7 - Finding defeat in victory

Finding defeat in victory

Speaking of things being frustrating, I want to spend a minute or two to express some personal frustration on another matter.

Two weeks ago, I told you about the declaration by US District Judge Richard Leon that the NSA's massive spying on Americans' telephone metadata is, quoting him, "significantly likely" to be unconstitutional. I was not the only one, of course, celebrating this dramatic smackdown of the spymasters' smirking self-justifications even as I and those others acknowledged the possibility of him being overruled by a higher court.

But leave it to some on the left to find defeat even in victory. Writing at AlterNet and later at Salon, Steven Rosenfeld declares ominously the whole thing could "backfire."

Now, let it be noted that Rosenfeld spends the majority of his piece not in defending that claim but in attacking Judge Leon as "a legal loudmouth and rightwing activist judge" who is "a longtime Republican warrior." While that appears true, I'm not sure of the relevance; as I said earlier in discussing this, the guy who brought the suit is a right-wing flake, which he is. But as I also said at the time, an old saying has it that "If it's the truth, what does it matter who said it?" Apparently, to Steven Rosenfeld, it can only be the truth if the correct sort of person says it.

But anyway, there is still his claim things could "backfire." Why and how? Well, he says, the case could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court where, quoting, him,

the conservative majority already has sanctioned NSA electronic eavesdropping and is known for elevating government searches over individual rights. In other words, Leon’s rebuke may help put the issue in front of a court majority that is poised to codify national security over privacy rights.

It must be admitted that is a true possibility. But the only alternative is to mount no legal challenge at all, which still leaves the spying as de facto, even if not de jure, legal. Is that what he wants? Is that what he'd advocating, that we do nothing for fear of making it worse? Or is it, as it equally appears to be, that he would prefer successive defeats in lower courts?

Oh, (I expect he would reply) but that's not fair! No, it's that the real focus should be on Congress! Okay, even granting that, how does that change the calculation about legal challenges? For one thing, if we were to win at the Supreme Court, the legislative battle would become unnecessary.

But worst case scenario: Suppose it does go to the Supreme Court - one of these spymaster cases will eventually - and we lose there? How does that bar us from the battles in Congress? Especially with regard to government powers, a court declaring something is legal under the Constitution does not mean it must remain legal under the law. I recall several years ago reading a book by an attorney who said that one principle of legal ethics, one admittedly often overlooked but still real, is the duty of a lawyer to sometimes tell their client "Yes, that is legal - but don't do it anyway because it's scummy." In the case of spying we could add highly subject to abuse and ultimately ineffective to scummy, so that even if the program as the government claims to be practicing it was found to be constitutional, that still doesn't mean we have to or should do it. The option of legislative opposition remains regardless of the outcome in the courts.

Despite that, Steven Rosenfeld spends his time fretting that a victory in a lower court spells doom for privacy.

As I said, leave it to the left to find long-term defeat in short-term victory. And that is so frustrating.

Sources:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/why_this_weeks_anti_nsa_court_ruling_could_backfire_partner/

140.6 - Evolution and ignorance

Evolution and ignorance

You know I sometimes have a feature I call "And Another Thing" where I deal in something not or at least not expressly political. Usually it's some science thing or another that I found particularly cool.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

According to a poll released on December 30 done by the Religion and Public Life Project of the Pew Research Center, fully one-third of Americans reject the idea of evolution, insisting that, in the words of the poll question, "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

It actually, to my mind, gets worse. While sixty percent of Americans say that "humans and other living things have evolved over time," when you break that figure down, it's not even as good as that tepid figure sounds. Only 32% of the American public accepts the fact that human evolution is "due to natural processes such as natural selection" while 24% say that "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today."

In the Center's report on the poll, that same question was broken out by religious group. Note this: Of the six groupings they broke out, in only one case, the religiously unaffiliated (which would also include agnostics and atheists), does a majority of that group hold that evolution is a natural process not directed by some supreme being. That is the only breakdown in this whole poll where it can be clearly said that a majority - and even there not an overwhelming majority - actually accepts the science.

The harsh, blunt truth is that we as a people, as a culture, as a society, we do not believe in science. We'll use all its benefits, we'll accept all the advantages we get, pick up on all the conveniences it produces through technology, but we refuse to believe in the process. We refuse to believe what science tell us. If it makes us at all uncomfortable, we resort to flat out denialism. It is just so frustrating.

No wonder we still get so many nanny-nanny naysayers about global climate change. We are so screwed.

Sources:
http://www.pewforum.org/
http://news.yahoo.com/one-third-americans-reject-evolution-poll-shows-191426764.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

140.5 - Clown Award: Ian Bayne

Clown Award: Ian Bayne

Now for the clown award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.

You know, of course, about the case of Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the "Duck Dynasty" family, who was momentarily suspended from the show by A+E for an interview in which he expressed contempt for homosexuals, claimed all non-Christian societies are plagued with problems because "no Jesus," and insisted that before all that civil rights stuff came along, blacks in the South were "singing and happy."

It took only a couple of days for A+E to offer its unconditional surrender to the banshees of the right, screeching about his "First Amendment right" to be on a cable TV show. (In which case, I'll be contacting HBO to see when my own Constitutionally-required special will be on.)

But believe it or not, A+E is not the clown here, much as they deserve to be.

No, the clown is Ian Bayne, a right-wing talk show host who is running for the GOPper nomination for a Congressional seat in Illinois. Why does he deserve the big red nose more than A+E? Well, while the network was just being a craven coward, Mr. Bayne went all in. Phil Robertson, he declared, was just like Rosa Parks. You remember Rosa Parks: the woman who helped spark the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott and through that the modern civil rights movement by refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man as the law demanded she do.

In a fundraising email, Bayne called Robertson the "Rosa Parks of our generation." Why? Because she took a brave stand and so did he. She took a stand against "persecution of black people" and he took a stand against "persecution of Christians."

That's right, according to Ian Bayne, Christians in the present-day US, despite making up 78% of the population, are subject to the same level of persecution as blacks in the pre-civil rights South and it took "courage" for Robertson to stand up for Christians! Right on!

What's more, comparing Rosa Parks to Phil Robertson was, he said, a compliment - to Parks. Yeah, can't you just imagine Rosa Parks, if she was still alive, saying "He said I was like Phil Robertson? Wasn't that nice of him! What a compliment!"

Bayne went on subsequently to tell Talking Points Memo that the US is "a Christian nation" and predicted a dire future where, quoting, "we will wake up in an America where if you walk around with the bible you could be arrested," which is why the courage of Phil Robertson was just so wonderful. In fact, it was just like Rosa Parks. Yup.

Two footnotes before I wrap this up: One is that blogger Daisy Deadhead had a wonderful rant on her local radio show, where she pointedly noted that firing Phil Robertson because of what he said is exactly what the right wing wants the bosses to be able to do! They want the bosses to be able to fire you for any reason. So what are they griping about?

And two, the blunt fact is, the whole crew of guys of "Duck Dynasty" are phonies. Bogus. Fakes. The family are millionaires and the whole bearded-camo look is nothing but a costume to fool the rubes. Don't believe me? Here are some examples of pictures from before and after the show started:

Brother Jase, then.









Brother Jase, now.













Brother Jep, then.












Brother Jep, now.









Brother Willie, then.










Brother Willie, now.









So number Ian Bayne among the rubes. As well as a clown.

Footnote: For those who don't know, the reason I called the network A+E is that html uses the ampersand as a special command character, so it would not display properly if I used it, requiring the use of the plus sign instead.


Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/ian-bayne-duck-dynasty_n_4480745.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/goper-who-compared-duck-dynasty-star-to-rosa-parks-he-wanted-to-expose-persecution-of-christians
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ian-bayne-clarifies-rosa-parks-duck-dynasty-comparison-not-about-skin-color-or-literal-comparison
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/war-on-christmas_n_4499155.html
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2013/12/daisys-duck-dynasty-rant-from-thursdays.html
http://crooksandliars.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-yuppies-red-neck-drag
http://www.refinedguy.com/2013/03/27/duck-dynasty-cast-before-and-after-style-pics/