Absolutely DisKosTing

Like so much of what is spewed forth by Daily Kos (and posted on facebook), this image is mostly bullshit designed to trash a politician simply because he has an (R) after his name. That's not to say that many on the right don't do the same sort of thing to the (D)s, but this is the one that's currently pissing me off.

There are a couple of KEY points which this image is not being completely truthful about.

1. He didn't "propose" the bill in the usual sense we think of. In Massachusetts, where Ross is a state senator, they have something called "the right to Free Petition":

In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase “By request” after his/her name.

If you take a look at the Bill here, you'll see that there is a "By request" after Ross's name. He has also stated that:

State government is not reserved solely for those who have been elected. It belongs to every citizen of Massachusetts. For that reason, when a constituent requested that I file a free petition on his behalf, I did so. While the proposal is not one that I support, I do support his right to participate in state government. This petition is now in the hands of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the democratic process will allow for it to be considered and voted on by the Legislature. (emphasis mine)

2. The picture makes you think that somehow this bill discriminates against women. It doesn't. The bill applies to both women AND men. Funny how they somehow forgot to put that part in, almost like they wanted you to think...oh, I don't know...that this guy is some kind of evil misogynist.

3. The picture leaves out two other very important pieces of information: it would only apply in divorces where children are involved and living with said parent, and it would only apply (based on the wording) to dates or sexual relations taking place within the house. Now those may not seem like important distinctions, but I think most of you are empathetic enough to put yourself in a concerned parent's shoes, and smart enough to see there's a great deal of difference between "a wife can't date or have sex during a divorce," and someone not wanting his or her ex to be getting busy in the bedroom while the kids are down the hall. Hell, I wouldn't want that happening, even if I was the parent getting busy.

I don't want the government in my bedroom, so I find this bill to be misguided, but I can see why a parent going through a divorce might want this in place. My feeling is that someone came up with this, thinking they were protecting children.

You can debate whether or not the bill is appropriate, but do it with all the facts, not the lies of both commission and omission that Kos is handing you. And don't kid yourself--they knew the truth. But that doesn't play into their narrative. They don't want you to revile the guy for creating a repressive, misogynistic bill (because he didn't). They want you to revile the guy because of his political party.

It's Exactly The Same, Except It's Different

Saw this one on facebook today:

Those horrible, horrible Republicans! How could they do this?! I mean, it's not like the House leadership passed their own version of the VAWA, that was closer to the previous version than the one the Senate passed, which added some new provisions, right? Wait..they did?! Well, what the fuck, then, pink sign?!

Look, we all know that violence against women is awful. Domestic violence particularly so. That's why I find this graphic so vile--it uses this tragic topic for purely political purposes. It clearly implies that House republicans don't care about violence against women, and as a result, have decided not to renew this important piece of legislation. Well, here's the truth--the Senate added three new provisions for the new VAWA:

1. It gives Native-American tribal authorities expanded authority to prosecute cases of violence that occur on reservations.
2. It specifically bans discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender victims by domestic violence organizations that receive federal funds.
3. It would raise the number of visas given to illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence above the current cap of 10,000.

These are the sticking points for the House, at least as I understand them. I'll be honest--I don't really have any problem with any of them. I understand the apparent arguments being made against them. That they give undue authority to N.A. tribal police, that the law as written previously covers G/L/TG victims, so there's no need to single them out, and that the cap is there for a reason. I just don't see them as being as big of a concern as the House does. But here's the thing: if you want to have an argument on the merits of these additions, then HAVE THAT ARGUMENT! But to make people think that the House leadership just doesn't want to pass a VAWA, when in fact they've already passed their own version, is just disingenuous, overly partisan, and frankly, really disgusting. It's amazing to what depths people will sink when they feel the end (voting out republicans) justifies the means (creating some bullshit graphic that unfairly (and untruthfully) paints a picture of political opponents).

It's Very Simple, Really...

I'm getting a little tired of the "it's all political showmanship" argument regarding the Fast & Furious scandal. Do Republicans benefit from the hearings? Absolutely. But that's an effect of the program, not a cause. The Republicans didn't make the administration hand out guns like they were lollipops. The Republicans didn't decide not to track them. It's not the Republicans fault that the guns were used to kill hundreds of people. Holder and the administration are in this mess because they put themselves there with bad decisions. The fact the the GOP benefits from that is besides the point.

And if someone wants to argue that the whole thing "isn't a big deal," ask them one simple question:

If this were any other group, would you still argue that?

That is, if we were to find out that some American corporation somewhere sold guns to foreign drug dealers, and that those guns were later responsible for the deaths of several hundred foreign nationals as well as a U.S. Border Patrol agent, shouldn't we pursue any and all avenues to find out who was responsible for those guns getting into foreign hands, and make sure he or she receives just punishment? Because you can bet your ass if it were to happen that way, the same people who are now saying "move along, nothing to see here" would be trumpeting this to the rooftops as a national tragedy and calling for tougher gun laws.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring if you take a more personal view. If I get liquored up one night, and the next morning they find the DNA of 300 dead Mexicans and a dead Border Patrol agent in the grill of my car, and the DA happens to disagree with me politically, it's not a political witch hunt when he prosecutes me; he's simply doing his job.

Enrico Palazzo! Enrico Palazzo!

Chief Justice Roberts--I'm not buying that he's an evil genius and that somehow this is actually a win for Republicans (and non-republicans like me who are strongly against Obamacare). I think it's a huge loss. I think it's a horrendous decision, one that may speed up the bankrupting of our country, and I'm not sure what was going through his mind. He may have succeeded in putting restraints on the Commerce Clause, but as others have pointed out, what difference does that make if he gave them the power to do essentially the same thing through levying taxes? Others have speculated that he may have been trying to preserve the image of the Court. Again, I don't think so, but if that's the case, then I'm even more dismayed. The Court's job is to interpret law, not to worry about politics or their image. It's the reason that they have life terms, so as not to be swayed by those things.

Roberts said he was going to be like an umpire, calling balls and strikes, but I feel like what he did was to see a ball coming and change the strike zone, in order to "legitimately" call it a strike.

BTW: anybody know the film reference in the title?

Also, Stay Out Of My Yard

So some communities (in this specific case, Middleborough, MA) are talking about fining people for swearing. To those communities, I say "go fuck yourself."

Seriously, though. This worries me. First of all, you have the question of what constitutes "profanity." You must have a list of forbidden words, otherwise, you're leaving it in the hands of law enforcement to decide, which I think is a dangerous precedent. In other words, if an officer doesn't like what you're saying, even if it's not creating a danger, you could be ticketed. If you do create a list of profane words, that seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment, does it not? Not to mention that you then run into the problem of worrying about determining intent. Is a dog walker yelling "cut that shit out" to his dog the same as him saying "excuse me while I pick this shit up"?

There is no right to not be offended. In fact, in any truly free society, you are almost guaranteed to be offended at some point. That's just how it works. It is unfortunate that some people can't control their mouths, and curse publicly. But that's all it is--unfortunate. It's not illegal, nor should it be. I will say, though, that I would get behind this law if the "quality of life" aspect was applied universally. For example, go ahead and ticket those who swear in public and detract from my quality of life. But you know who else you have to ticket? The parents of those brats who scream at the top of their lungs in public. Now, I'm not talking about infants. They can't help it. I'm talking about the 5-11 year-olds who scream like they're being murdered when a) they can't have something they want, b) they're playing, or c) any other time. That's affecting MY "quality of life." I'd much rather listen to (and be less offended by, frankly) someone working up a good cussing, especially if he knows what he's doing, than some snot-nose who is just creating noise pollution. These parents ought to be held responsible. Yeah, fine, you've learned to tune your kids out. But why should I have to?

And if the kids who live in your neighborhood are anything like the kids who live in mine, the revenue generated could possibly single-handedly save the economy.

N.B.

Actually, the more I've thought about it, the more violators I've come up with:

1. People who keep the bass in their cars so loud you can hear it through the walls in your house as they drive by,  because, apparently, they like their music so much they just can't help but share.
2. Motorcycle drivers who feel the need to rev their engines, even though they're not actually in a race of any kind. Dude, you've got 50 feet to the stop sign on a 30 mph, residential street. This is not the time to be compensating for your small penis.
3. People who use their outdoor voice for...well, for pretty much everything. This seems to happen most often in places like Wal-Mart, and it's always the most idiotic people. You never see some nuclear physicist doing this. "THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE STATES THAT A SUBATOMIC PARTICLE'S POSITION AND MOMENTUM CANNOT BE MEASURED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY!" Then, at least, I might learn something.

Feel free to add more to the list..

Go Figure

Should I be surprised that a President without any previous executive experience would pick a nominee without any judicial experience for the Supreme Court?

Best Headline Of The Week

Man sues airline for not looking at his scrotum

I wasn't even aware that was an option. Let's just say that I could have been a very rich man.

(Apparently, airports have all these "rules" about having to actually be traveling somewhere to get a strip search.)

Please Pull The Karma Over, Sir!

So I'm driving through a school zone today, and at a four-way stop a guy in an SUV runs the stop sign, cutting me off. In his attempt to completely ignore my existence, he apparently also completely ignored the cop car right behind me. Suck it, Scofflaw!

I live for that shit.