Today, President Obama and some other Smiley Gladhands will sit around and pretend to get something done.

This is not a shot at Obama as much as it is a shot at the “health summit” that is taking place today.  Basically, with the whole thing being broadcast on television, it is doubtful that anyone — Democrat or Republican — will step up and push for something novel.  Repubs think they are being set-up; Demos are trying to prove that their counterparts are not interested in health care.  It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east (well, unless you are at the North Pole; or the South Pole for that matter) and Kim Yu-na winning the gold tonight (so why bother watching).

But what will happen is a continuing trend, one that according to a Kaiser poll suggest that U.S.ians see clearly.  According to that poll, 59 percent of U.S.ians believe that party politics are being played at the expense of getting shit done.  Additionally, 58 percent of people would be either “angry” or “disappointed” if Congress stopped attempting to reform health care.  Of those people, most (68 percent) would blame both Repubs and Demos equally!

Point?  People want reform in health care.  What is interesting is according to this poll, the numbers are split between support and opposition (43 percent for each); although there are more who strongly oppose (32 percent) than strongly support (24 percent).  Predictably, looking at party lines produces familiar results.

Of the top five reasons why people support legislation, three of the top five are related to actual reform (number one is extending health care to those who cannot access it or afford it).  Of the reasons why people oppose it, only one is directly related to reform (as in they are not going “far enough in expanding coverage or controlling cost”).

Here is the point.  People want reform but do not believe that it will happen or that the government is not going about it the proper way.  And I agree completely.

Among friends, including those who are against nationalized health care, I have stated that the method (and speed) that Congress has attempted to “change” health care in the United States is doomed to fail.  Reform is necessary, but it is being brought about the wrong way.

Additionally, both sides of the government (Demos and Repubs) are playing politics rather than getting anything done.  They are more concerned about their own necks and position of power rather than looking out for their constituencies.  Anyone who campaigns simply on the fact that they do not support the health care bill, even if it is not adequate, is only attempting to use that to prop themselves up.

Of course I am not claiming they need to support a bill that is flawed.  But few, if any, are offering any counters to the bill.  Just “vote for me; I did not support the health bill.”  It is not any different than Gladhands claiming “vote for me; I am not Bush,” or even “I did not support the stimulus bill.”  Offer solutions rather than typical political rhetoric!!!

Here is the issue with health care; it is in the hand of companies.  In a capitalist system, the point of any company is to make money!  Cut costs and raise revenue in order to maximize profits.  So (health) insurance companies are more interested in their bottom line and remaining in the black rather than covering people.  Health insurance, and by extension “health,” is a commodity to be bought and sold and thus a profit can be made.

For all the people who worry about so-called “death panels” and government approval (or disapproval) being made on health decisions, insurance companies already do the same thing!  Deciding not to cover pre-existing conditions or not to cover a procedure because it was deemed not necessary or you went to a non-affiliated doctor is what these companies already do.  Reform is needed.

Additionally, frivolous lawsuits need to be addressed, not just in relation to the health care “industry” but throughout U.S. society.  Protection from lawsuits is one reason why health costs are so high.  Granted, there are many doctors who botch surgeries or are addicted to meds that they drive up costs themselves.  But doctors and health care professionals need to be protected from frivolous lawsuits.  This would bring down some costs.

Furthermore, there has been a lot of wrangling over uninsured U.S.ians.  The number fluctuates depending on which political party or talker is citing the figures.  Some point out that the high numbers are inflated by undocumented immigrants milking the system, people choosing not to carry insurance, or people who would qualify for Medicaid but choose not to use it.

But the larger issue (and related to reform rather than expanding coverage) is not uninsured people but underinsured U.S.ians.  According to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, in 2007 there were over 25 million U.S.ians who have health insurance that does not adequately cover costs.  This means that they are left paying the gap, leading some to bankruptcy.

This is where the greatest strain in the U.S. health care system exists.  When people cannot pay their health bills, the burden is often shifted to others.  And while the number of underinsured people is from 2007, that represents a 60 percent increase from 2003.  With the economy affecting everyone, this number likely increased as more people “downsized” their coverage to a more affordable, but inadequate, plan.

So can government-run health care solve all of the problems?  Not completely.  There will still be gaps and issues beyond the cost (if people want to bitch about the cost of health care, it would still be cheaper than fighting two wars!).  Nevertheless, companies are making money off of people’s health!  The allowance of this scheme is abominable!

In a capitalist society, the government’s role is to provide services that are socially necessary but not necessarily profitable.  Thus, health care is a social necessity and should, in some form, be in the hands of the government.  Allowance for people to purchase private insurance or pay for services themselves should exist, as it does in other countries with nationalized health care.

The first emergence of expanded social services from the government occurred during the depression of the 1930s.  Before this time, there was little government regulation beyond things such as subsidized railroads.  It was Reagan and others some 50 years later who attempted to dismantle the so-called “welfare state.”  It made sense, the U.S. was prospering.

But we face another economic catastrophe and the time for health care reform is now.  However, the United States is far too large to have a sweeping, nationalized health care system.  Some states need more services than others.  Here is where the U.S. can take a cue from India.

India, another federal state, places the onus on the individual states to provide adequate health care for its citizens.  This is important due to the number of people living in India, the world’s second most populous country.  While there are mixed results (with many Indian states in the south having comparatively more success than northern states), the U.S. can take a cue from India.  Government-sponsored health care needs to be more localized, at least down to the state scale, rather than at the national scale.  States know more about what they need and can control it more.  What Alabama needs is likely completely different than Massachusetts.

The point of all of this is that reform is necessary and an option to enter into state-sponsored health care needs to be on the table for U.S.ians.  If the government is to be involved, it needs to be state governments and not the federal government.  But as things stand now, insurances companies will continue to make a profit off of something that should not be commodified.

People are angry and want reform.  But politicians will continue to do the only thing they have ever known — blame the other party and continue to play partisan politics.  Meanwhile, their constituencies are beginning to realize that politicians, many funded by insurance companies, are the ones to blame for the failure to pass reform regardless of their party affiliation.

People are angry!  But, many seem unwilling to actually step up and challenge not just the health care industry in the U.S., but also the two-party system in this country that continues to filibuster the people they are supposed to be serving.

So, Toyota is having troubles with “quality.”

People are having “unintended or unwarranted acceleration” and it appears that Toyota’s electrical equipment might be to blame.  Is this perhaps the result of a company overextending itself; growing too large and moving beyond an economic philosophy which bears its name (Toyotaism)?

Or, is it something else driving this fear?  Is it a conspiracy to undermine the world’s largest automaker?

Now, maybe the people with acceleration issues are just making it up; trying to come up with a reason why they were doing 90 in a school zone.

Or maybe it is a plot by the U.S. government and Detroit automakers to take down the king of the road.

Keep the following in mind: the accelerator pedal that has been blame was made by CTS corporation, which is from the United States.  Hmm.  Vehicles with Japanese-made pedals reported no problems.  HMMMMM!!!  Something smells fishy, and it’s not your wife.

Floor mats?  Well, many dealers have stopped offering floor mats as standard on their vehicles.  This means that it is possible the floor mat issue is related to people using incorrect floor mats.  Perhaps people who hate foreign companies…companies like Toyota.  And they are purposely attempted to undermine the reputation of a fine corporation like Toyota.  I think something is amiss.

And what about the newly termed “sticky accelerator”?  So much is made of Toyota’s issue, but what about other companies?  Audi, who had to overcome its own safety issues in the 1980s, had an issue with “sticky accelerators” in the late 1990s.  According to CNN.com, each of the top five auto manufacturers in the United States have had issues with zany accelerators.  Certainly Toyota leads the way with 41 percent of all complaints, but Ford is second with 28 percent.  This issue extends beyond the top five, including companies like Kia and Mercedes-Benz.

Additionally, the media continues to drive up fear by focusing on Toyota.  But the likelihood of an unintended acceleration issues is very small and the number of actual reports are limited.  Furthermore, the fear-driving of the media probably led to some to just assume that their issue is UA.  It is like when someone starts sneezing and aching, they think it is H1N1.  Self-fulfilling prophecies?

And…AND!  According to some of the lunatic-fringe talkers, since the media is supposedly “state-run,” does this mean that the fear that is being stirred up is driven by the U.S. government?  And, for what?  Undermine a Japanese company?!  Ah!  Strange things are afoot at the Circle K!

Yes, my comrades, a conspiracy is definitely ongoing to kill Toyota.  Think about it…other companies have the same issue, but only Toyota is highlighted.  The U.S. government owns a good share of General Motors, so obviously they have to protect their brand!  The faulty pedals are made by U.S. companies.

And what about the change in how fuel economy is determined?  Yes, this is something from a few years ago, but for a time the Japanese automakers, led by Toyota, were leaders in fuel economy.  Then, the EPA changed their method for determining fuel economy and suddenly U.S. companies are on par with Japanese companies.  They said it was to reflect “real world conditions” and overcome an antiquated method.  Well, of course it is antiquated because it makes U.S. vehicles look like clunkers!!!  Conspiracy!!!

And speaking of clunkers, the EPA tweeked the fuel economy measure during the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” campaign.  The tweek disqualified certain vehicles from the trade in while adding new ones.  While essentially improved the “miles per gallon” for these vehicles, it meant that people could not take advantage of the program.  Disqualified were ten Toyota brand vehicles; only two G.M. vehicles.  Meanwhile, 11 G.M. vehicles were added to the list of “clunkers” while only two Toyotas were added.

What does that mean?  While Toyota proved its efficiency, it punished people for being loyal to a foreign company.  Conspiracy!!!!

Look, we know that Toyota is still the most fuel efficient company, despite what Howie Long claims.  According to the 2009 numbers and among the major Japanese and U.S. automakers, Toyota had 15 cars in the top 50 most fuel efficient; GM only 11.  Top 100?  25 to 19.  Top 200? 42 to 34.  Top 300?  62 to 56.  Top 400?  83 to 72.  Top 500…ah, finally!  GM wins 100 to 95.  But by that point, GM’s huge line of automobiles catches up to Toyota.  That is the only reason they finally have more “fuel efficient” cars.

Point?  The change in the MPG was an attempt to undermine the Japanese car makers.  And while it did bring the numbers closer together, Toyota and the other Japanese automakers still prove to be more efficient than their U.S. counterparts.

So, do not rush to Aokigahara, Mr. Toyoda.  We all know it is a conspiracy led by the United States government against your awesome company.  We do not care that our Lexus suddenly went ape-shit and attempted to accelerate into a group of Jerry’s kids.  We’ll stand by you anyway!!!

“Sticky accelerator.”  Ha!  That is a myth like the moon landing and the Super Bowl!

So I was on the telephone with Dear Ol’ Mum and she was bitching and moaning about the gov’ment.  “Oh, they steal our money and give it to lazy people!  Down with the evil, evil gov’ment!”  So I ask her:

“Do you really think the government should not take money from its citizens (i.e. tax them)?”

“Well, just do not take it and give it to those lazy shits who are not working!”

“What’s wrong with that?”

“It is socialist!  It is the redistribution of wealth.”

“Ok.  Stop drawing unemployment!”

[Silence]

“Fuck you!”

“Gee…that’s a nice way to respond to your son, Mom.”

[click...dial tone]

You see, people like to rip on the government.  It is a fun pasttime.  The government is the easiest target; low-hanging fruit.  So if something goes wrong, it is immediately the government’s fault.

Therefore it is intuitive for people to blame the poor economy on the government.  But how is it that the government is to blame for the market?

Here’s the thing — free marketers prefer less regulation.  But if the economy falters, they begin to look towards the government.  They either look for the government to do something about the economy, or they blame the economic problems on the government.

But how is it the government’s fault?  It is not the government’s fault that it is cheaper to ship textile jobs to Mexico or call centers to India.  It is not the government’s fault that Toyota makes better automobiles than GM or Ford (although Toyota is facing their own issues now).  It is not the government’s fault that employers are not hiring.

People are clamoring for the government to “stimulate the economy.”  What the hell!?  Why?  I thought the market would take care of itself.  Why does the government need to energize the economy?  If the market is so awesome, then why does the government need to do anything about the economy?

It is perplexing.  People want the free market to be hands off, until it goes into the shitter.  Then it is the government’s job to stimulate it.  “C’mon Big Government, rub the market’s clitoris and stimulate the economy!”

Just another victim...of the market; not the government.

What a bunch of horse shit!  You cannot have it both ways.  In a capitalist economy, it is not the government’s job to create, well, jobs.  It is the market.  You should not have to provide tax breaks and incentives for small businesses to hire people.  Apparently the market has decided that it does not want to hire people.

What’s wrong with the economy?  Nothing!  This is what economies do — they shrink; they grow.  Right now, it is shrinking.  In due time, it will grow again.  But it is the market that is driving the economy to do what it is doing; not the government.

I am sick of hearing that it is the government’s fault.  Yes, the government is to blame for allowing lending practices that led to the housing crisis.  Yes, some regulation has adverse effects on business.  That is the government’s fault.

But when it comes to “stimulating the economy,” the invisible hand needs to get to work instead of pointing the finger and reaching for handouts.

Back to Dead Ol’ Mum.  The reason I bring her up is because she is, unfortunately, unemployed.  But if it were not for the government collecting money from companies for unemployment, she would not have any income.  The market decided some time ago that she was not needed.  But it was the government that stepped in to help her out.

If always amuses how people can be so anti-government, until they need them.

If you’ve ever read anything here at El Mao (and from the looks of the stats, you have not), you will notice that we frown about “race” as a concept.  And we definitely hate the race card being played, as well as the automatic labeling of something as “racist.”

Hold on, I am about to say something stupid!

So when it came to light that Democrat Harry Reid noted that President Obama had a “light complexion” and did not have a “Negro dialect,” the immediate response of critics (and namely Demo-haters) is to blast Reid as a racist.

But if you read the actual entry from the book, it is clear what Reid is noting — that, to him, the only way U.S.ians were ready to elect a minority was if he (and i use he on purpose) did not look like a minority.  It is backwards to suggest that U.S.ians have not progressed (and it is evident that “racism” does still exist), but it seems more of an indictment of the U.S. electorate rather than a racist remark about Obama.

Of course, people do not read and attempt to understand context.  So, Reid is a racist.  But is he really?  I mean, is it because he noted Obama’s comparatively light-colored skin?  Or he used the term “Negro”?  Silliness!  Just ask Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Nevertheless, it did not stop the Repubs and traditionalist from whipping out their dicks and spraying all over this non-issue.  And they even attempt to draw parallels between what Reid stated and what former Senator Trent Lott stated.

Whoa now! Don't bring me into this shit!

Huh?  How are the two the same?  Yes, both invoked race to some degree.  But Reid criticized the perceived racism of the U.S. population; Lott praised a segregationist’s failed presidential campaign and stated that “we” were proud to vote for him.  Are you shitting me!?  Those are far from the same!  Thurmond’s entire platform was based on keeping an entire segment of the U.S. population down.  Even if you believe that Reid’s comments were racist, saying that someone is light-skinned and lacks a “Negro” accent is different than stating this country would be better off had we elected a segregationist!

But that is not even the reason I have popped in to write this article.  It is more about the bullshit that is being trotted out by Reid supporters.  This notion that because Reid has a voting record that supports minorities proves that he is not a racist!

Really?  That’s your counter-attack to all of this!?  That rebuttal is as empty as a campaign promise.

Here is an example.  There are plenty of white people who listen to rap music, maybe even dress in the hip-hop style and use AAVE.  They might even have a requisite “black friend” (as George Carlin used to state, a friend who “happens to be black”).  And if they have that black friend, they go out of their way to let you know that.

However, despite all of this, they use language that could be considered racist.  In reality, they do not associate with minorities and in fact cannot stand them.  And that one black “friend” is more of an acquaintance.  They might openly state things like minorities are ruining this country, or that affirmitive action is given blacks an unfair advantage.  Hell, they might even have a Confederate Battle Flag pillow on their couch!

Seem extreme?  Maybe.  But i grew up knowing hypocrites like this.  People who would listen to hip-hop music, but did not associate with blacks at all.  I am not saying all people are this way, but that scenario is real.

Point is that it is possible to like something of another culture, but not actually like that culture, let alone associate with people of stated culture.

What!? What the hell did you call me!?

I made the argument (tongue-in-cheek) that Kayne West was a racist due to his antics.  And a commenter here noted that he has worked with white artists.  But, that does not mean he likes them.  Sounds strange, right?  How could you work with someone that you do not like.  Well, it is all amount the Benjamins!  If working with a white artist can get West ahead in the world (and gain him a wider fan base), then he is going to do that!  He can still hate whitey, as long as he is seeing green!

Back to Reid and Demos.  They may claim that they support minorities.  But how much of that is sincere concern and how much of that is attempts to tap into a segment of the electorate?  How often is Reid going to sit down for dinner with a black family?  Well…he might, as long as they brought campaign donations for the $1000 per plate dinner.

This is not to suggest that Reid is indeed a racist.  But the argument that he, and Demos in general, have a better voting record with regards to minorities versus Repubs is disingenuous and does NOT disprove that Reid is a racist.

And one more note, don’t give me this “it was off-the-record” bullshit.  Stop it!  That is the biggest cop out.  “Oh, I did not know.”  Well, don’t say things like that if you are afraid it will paint you a certain way!!!!!!  If you think it is going to make you look like an ass, do not say it.  He obviously meant to say it, regardless of if it was on the record or not.  Don’t attempt to blame others for what you said, Mr. Reid!!!

Overall, it is difficult to note that the words used were indeed “racist” because the intended target was the U.S. public as a whole (and likely whites).  The only questionable move was the use of 1960-era language (“Negro”), although allegedly the Census is trying to bring that one back!

So, the whole moral here is that just because Reid allegedly works for the advancement of minorities does not mean he actually likes them.  He could absolutely hate them with every bone in his body.  But if kissing the ass of some blacks will get votes, something tells me that a politician is puckering up.

Go on, Smiley Gladhand! Pucker up!

Our comrades at Uncle Popov’s Drunken Sports Rant published an article in April claiming that it is okay to hate Tiger Woods.  But his recent “transgressions” have probably enhanced the level of hatred for many.

But I have a problem with the entire Woods v. Elin garbage and its starts with the alleged negotiation of the prenuptials.

Yup, she's the love of my life...and she only cost $5 million!!!

First off, prenuptials scream insecurity.  Certainly people with lots of money do not want to get taken to tasks by someone that they are marrying.  Problem is that you should not jump into a marriage haphazardly.  If you are getting married, you should be confident in the person you are marrying and not just “gettin’ hitched” for the hell of it.  Love should be paramount and money should not matter.  Is that not the point of the whole “for richer or poorer” nonsense that is repeated in weddings?  You are supposed to stand by your partner no matter the financial situation.  But a prenuptial undermines that.

Second, the “renuptials” (if you will) is the ultimate show of money overcoming love.  It is being reported that Elin will receive at least $5 million to STAY WITH WOODS!!!  Um…is this not a form of prostitution?  Y’know, paying for love?  But that is not for marriage.  To steal a line from American Beauty, their “marriage is just for show.”  If you have to pay to keep a woman, that is not marriage.  And it makes Elin look like a greedy whore who cares nothing about Woods or their children.

But the problem we have with the whole Woods fiasco, and believe us it is a fiasco, is that how hungry people are to see Woods (or any celebrity) fail.  Some blame the media for driving the craze and fueling the fire over the car accident and the affairs.  But if people did not consume this type of news, there would be no need for the media to produce “dirty” news.  And while his ambigous responses and attempts to “hide” everything just drives that hunger…the sharks can sense the blood in the water.

Nevertheless, go to a supermarket check out line and peruse the tabloids (y’know, right across from the candies).  Stories of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or Britney Spears, or Kirstie Alley, or Oprah, or Jon & Kate, or Lindsay Lohan.  All stories of celebrities going down in flames.  People love that.  They want to consume bad news.

I’ve watched late night television shows and watched Letterman or Conan interview someone and think to myself, “Why the hell are they talking to this person about wallpaper!?!?”  Are people really interested in this shit?

The whole industry of “dirty” news has never made sense to me.  I am not much for the whole celebrity obession.  I do not care about celebrity lives; I do not like the paparazzi…LEAVE CELEBRITIES ALONE, DAMMIT!!!  I really do not care about what celebrities do.  Again, I hate the hordes of cheap celebrity magazines and how they whore themselves off with stories of who’s getting fat, or knocked up, or back in rehab.  And it is not just the magazines, as I have seen “breaking news” about bullshit like Starr Jones being forced off a daytime talk show!!!!  Seriously!?

But what drives all of this nonsense about celebrity lives?  Well, it is a form of escapism.  Think of it this way: celebrities live a luxurious life that a majority of people can only dream of.  This is why we love shows such as Cribs…seeing the extravagant homes of the wealthy is a form of escapism.  Through the lives of musicians and actors and athletes, we can leave (escape) our “hum-drum” lives and live vicariously through our favorite celebrities.

The only "real" news for some people.

But sometimes, the mundane lives some of us live can lead to dissatisfaction and resentment about those that have more.  So, if we see a celebrity fail — someone who is placed on a pedestal (no matter if they are lofted up by the media or their own doings) — it makes us feel better about our lives.  We are reminded that even the “best” can falter.

So, “dirty” news is produced because there is a market for it.  And, as referenced above, it is because it takes our attentions off of how dismal our own lives are.  Consider the following…

You get up at 6am to drive your Geo Prism to your shitty job, where you work your ass off for no respect.  You are probably working under some punk-ass kid with no experience who only got the job because his daddy knew someone.  Then, you drive home in rush hour traffic, which is at a stand-still for 45 minutes.  You make dinner — meat from a can and potatoes from a box.  And, just when you find the perfect vein to slice open (remember, up the arm, not across it)…BAM!!!!  There is a sign of hope on your 13-inch television.  It’s Tiger Woods!  And he has released a statement about his “transgressions” and that he is not “perfect.”  Ah, hope!!!!  Even Eldrick slips.  That makes your day end on a happy note.  You put the razor blade down and smile.  All is right with the world…….at least until 6am.

Here at the Path of Wrong Speech, we never admit to being correct all of the time.  We are mostly just an opinion site full of ranting and ravings.

One thing that we do not do is remove articles.  But, if we think we are off-base, we are willing to revisit that article.

This is the case of the Ft. Hood Shooting, which we wrote about on 9 November 2009.  Now, a lot of information is still coming out, and I am not saying that the initial analysis is inaccurate.  I still believe that Major Hasan had some mental issues and this played a major role in him snapping.

But little by little, connections are being made between Hasan and reactionary Islamic clerics.  And the possibility that this could be defined as an act of terrorism raises with each connection made.

Now, I stand by the initial analysis that Hasan does seem like a rogue Muslim.  And until there is clear evidence that he was directed by someone to pull this off, I stand by that statement.  It seems that his own delusions coupled with his alleged conversations with reactionaries and concerns of fighting against his fellow Muslims drove him to commit this heinous act.  Plus, I wrote “And it seems that this [mental health issue] is a possible reason behind Hasan’s killing spree.”

That stated, even without that directive to commit the crime, it could still be a form of ideological terrorism based on his contacts.  Terrorism is hard to defined, but even the one we used here (an act of violence against any member of society [including civilians] to further a political objective), it is possible if his [Hasan's] goal was to diminish morale.  But still, that is a stretch.

Nevertheless, since these connections to Muslim reactionaries seems legit, I will admit that we jumped the gun and were wrong to dismiss this as an act of terrorism.  Even if his mental condition was the cause, it can still to some degree be connected to the furtherance of the objectives of reactionaries.

So, we will eat our murder of crows.

Meet Chip; a moron in action!

In the Tuesday (10 Nov) edition of the USA Today, Chip Fetner of Wilmington, North Carolina wrote an eloquent piece regarding the defeat of same-sex rights in Maine.  Why some dunce from North Carolina is concerned with Maine politics is beyond me.  Nevertheless, Chip writes

“Traditional marriage, defined in the Bible as being between one man and one woman, has been upheld by the will of the people.  . . . Apparently, gay marriage supporters are not going to listen and are intent on forcing others to accept their immoral lifestyle.  . . . It must be understood that the gay rights movement is not based on ethnic or racial differences.”

Notice how the daughter is with the mother and the son is with the father? Weird!

And Chip goes on to yank a quote from the “good book” and urge all U.S.ians to take a stand for “traditional marriage.”

Oh, Chip.  Where to begin?

Something tells me that if the institution of marriage had been extended to same-sex couples that people like Chip would not have listened to the will of the people and attempted to overturn the vote.  For example, it seems that Protect Marriage Washington is going to continue to crusade against same-sex unions (and marriage) despite the will of the people of the Evergreen State speaking loudly and approving such unions.

And while not an attempt to overturn the will of the people, Christian groups and anti-gay organizations have attempted to overturn same-sex marriage laws in states that allow for the practice.

Second, what of Christians attempting to force their version of morality on people?  What one thinks is “moral” but not be so for another.  Now, I am not justifying hideous acts such as murder, saying that maybe some see it as a right.  But in terms of social norms, who has historically been in control of crafting the social norms?  Well, Christians…and whites…and males…and heterosexuals!

Through the course of human history we have eroded the power of whites and of males to allow for non-whites and non-males (well…females) to have a voice; to have the same rights as their counterparts.  We have seen the error of our ways and corrected them.  Shouldn’t we do the same here?

Third, slavery is in the Bible.  Why not wonder why the U.S. cannot support slavery?  Hey, it gets shit done, right?  Southern ministers relied heavily on the Bible during the Civil War, claiming that slavery in accordance to the Bible was okay.  After defeat in what some southerners claimed was a holy war, ministers explained that the South did not practice Biblical slavery and attempt to convert the savages.  Just because it is in the Bible does not mean that it is okay.

Besides, I thought Christians were supposed to ignore the Old Testament.  Chip cites Genesis!?  Why not cite Leviticus while you are at it?

Fourth, Chip insinuates that homosexuality is a choice and not inherent like ethnicity (he includes “race,” but there is nothing biological about “race”).  Do you know what else is a choice?  Religion!  You are using something arbitrary (religion) to argue against same-sex marriage.  Why not use one of Glenn Beck’s books?  Or Dr. Suess?  It would be just as “valid.”

If you really want people to take a stand for “traditional marriage,” then why not encourage abstainance, so teenagers would not be getting hitched because the girl was knocked up?  Your “social norms” that paint out-of-wedlock sex as immoral is what drives these impromptu weddings that tend to fail.

Speaking of that, if you want to defend marriage, then do something about the insane number of divorces that occur in this country.  That would be a better defense.

If a same-sex couple marries, how will that affect you?  How will that make your life any worse?

Arthur Ashe statue in Richmond

I am reminded of the debate in Richmond, Virginia when the city was attempting to decide where to place a statue of Arthur Ashe.  The proposed statue of Ashe, a black man known as much for his humanitarian work as his tennis play, was to be placed on Monument Avenue, a stretch of road lined with Confederate (white) heroes!

There was much outcry over this proposed placement (from both blacks and whites), but the argument from one white opponent is interesting.  The argument was that placing the Ashe statue on Monument Avenue would somehow “diminish the quality of life [in Richmond].”  Ironically, it was this type of statement that swayed some opponents of the site to actually vote for it.

Is this what Chip Fetner is worried about?  Does he really think that same-sex marriage will “somehow diminish the quality of life here”?

Congratulations, Chip Fetner.  You are a Moron in Action!

The tragic shooting at Ft. Hood is now morphing into religious intolerance and peculiar equations.

Here is a question: what is terrorism?  Simply put, it is an act of violence (or the potential for violence) to further a political agenda.  Did Major Nidal Hasan attempt to further any political agenda?

Well, he allegedly posted messages online that justified suicide bombings.  He also claimed that his nationality was Palestinian (again, allegedly).  This could mean that he sympathized with the Palestinians.

But everything points to the fact that this was a guy who had some mental issues of his own (ironic considering that he is/was a psychiatrist).  And his own delusions, as well as his faith, drove him to do something heinous.  But unless the dots can truly be connected to a terrorist organization, it seems like this was more the lone work of a wack-job.  A “rogue” Muslim, so to speak.

I like that phrase…”rogue Muslim.”  He [Maj. Hasan] does not represent all Muslims.  He does not even represent Islamic extremists.  He did all of this on his own.  It is no different than those “rogue” snipers who pick off Iraqi citizens in order to produce a higher body count.  Those cats do not represent the U.S. mission in Iraq, right?

But see, here is the problem.  People are too quick to label Hasan an “extremist” and a terrorist.  Blogs such as this one quickly use a faulty equation that is similar to one from the Cold War.

Islam = Terrorism

Socialism = Soviet Union = Communism

Remember the latter one?  Forget the fact that socialism existed in Western European countries during the Cold War.  It was convenient to equate socialism with the Soviets, who were also equated with communism.  So if you were socialist, then you were communist.  Funny thing is Chinese communism and Vietnamese communism are/were different from Soviet communism.  But do not let facts get in the way of the simplistic equation.

Such ignorance continues today.  It is not to say that there are not Islamic terrorist; obviously there are.  But Islam does NOT equal terrorism.  In fact, terrorism does not equal Islam.  There are terrorist in every religion.

But it humors me that people are quick to claim that Hasan is/was a terrorist not only because he was Muslim, but also because he allegedly yelled the takbir (“Allahu akbar” or “God is great!”).  Um, again, driven by his own delusions and the notion of going to fight a war against his religion (as he sees it), it makes sense that he was driven to do this crime and, in the process, scream a common Islamic statement.

Keep this in mind.  There is a major problem with mental assessment among U.S. soldiers prior to deployment.  Suicide rates are incredibly high for soldiers while they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.  One report notes that suicide attempts among soldiers fighting in Asia are at five per day (up from one per day prior to the Second Iraq War).  This can be attributed to withheld information (on the part of the soldiers themselves), as this article from the Hartford Courant notes.

Furthermore, suicides prior to deployment are also a problem.  A letter to The New York Times (allegedly from a mental health lawyer) claims that pre-deployment suicide is a problem that is related to misevaluation.  This is a phenomenon that is not unique to the United States, as this article from the U.K. suggests.  Even some soldiers that are not even scheduled for deployment have committed suicide because of the war.

Point is that there does appear to be a problem with the mental health of many U.S. soldiers, including psychiatrists.  And it seems that this is a possible reason behind Hasan’s killing spree.

Maybe religion did play a role.  After all, to some Muslims — even moderate ones — there does appear to be a war on their religion.

Not justifying Hasan heinous actions.  But I am sure some moron will think that I did justify it.

Larry Johnson is an ass.  But it is more than just his homophobic responses to people who disagree with him.

By now, it is been over-blogged and over-hyped about Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson and his “Twitter” post attacking his coach.

Here are his posts:

My father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches.

My father played for the coach from “rememeber the titans”. Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn.

Hmm. This is somewhat of an odd picture.

Now, it was his dropping of “fag” and the reference to Christopher Street (located in Greenwich Village and related to the gay pride movement) on his Twitter account that sparked the controversy.

This was compounded when he used the derogatory term again, this time towards reporters.

But there are other atrocities here as well.

First is the fact that he has a “Twitter” account.  That should be a sign of shame for anyone over the age of 16.  Besides, how narcassistic is “Twitter”!  Letting everyone know what you are doing right now???  “Look at me!  Look at me now!”  Grow up, Cat in the Hat!

But what of the abuse of the English language!?  Let’s reset those posts.

My father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches.  . . . My father played for the coach from “rememeber the titans”. Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn.

Holy hell!

Hey, I get it.  People make mistakes with grammar and spelling.  But that is ridiculous!  What happened to that Penn State education?

Do they teach English at PSU?

Hell, I am impressed that he was actually able to use insinuations by referencing Christopher Street!

Where is the outrage over the abuse of the English language?  The waste of an education from a fine public university?

I guess we know what LJ learned at Pennsylvania State University — “Nuthn.”

A video game; a bike; or your life.

Apparently that is the type of bargaining that goes on in southern Florida.

According to reports, 15-year old Michael Brewer received a video game from fellow teen Matthew Bent.  Allegedly, Brewer did not pay for the video game so Bent attempted to steal a bicycle that belong to Brewer’s father (valued at over $400???).  Bent called the cops and Brewer was arrested.

The next day, while hanging out at the pool, Bent and a group of other teenagers accosted Brewer, doused him with rubbing alcohol (that they just so happened to find) and set him on fire!

Brewer was taken to the hospital with burns on 65 percent of his body, while the alleged firestarters were arrested.  Doctors do think Brewer could make it, but organ failure is possible, as is infection.

Matthew Bent (big ups to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel)

The teens charged in the attack reportedly laughed at the incident.  Only one child showed any form of remorse.  All of the kids charged in the incident apparently have a criminal background (already??).

Is this racism at work?  Bent is black.  Brewer is white.  The ethnicities of the other alleged attackers appear to be either white or Hispanic.  Fact is that it was a black boy attacking a white boy over a video game.

In Florida, where this incident occurred, there is a hate crime elevator (Florida statute 775.085):

(1)(a)  The penalty for any felony or misdemeanor shall be reclassified as provided in this subsection if the commission of such felony or misdemeanor evidences prejudice based on the race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, mental or physical disability, or advanced age of the victim…

So does this apply here?  Should this not be considered a hate crime?  If Brewer survives, should the classifications of the crime be elevated?

Well, before delving into that, consider the following.  Two people are arguing in a park — one is white and one is black.  The black individual calls the white “redneck” and “cracker,” suggests that the white goes back to their “hick town,” and insinuates that the white individual could be killed “around here!”  Is that racist?  Is that a hate crime?

Well, making threats of bodily harm, including murder, is a crime.  And, the argument could be deemed disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and if there are groups of people there could be considered to be inciting riotous behavior.  Since racial rhetoric was used by the black individual, and a crime could be committed (disorderly conduct, for example), then the hate crime elevator comes into play.

Poppycock?  There is no way that such a scenario could occur, right?

I present to you State of Wisconsin v. Welda.  According to a law blog from Marquette University…

the defendants were convicted of disorderly conduct arising out of what seems to be an argument with some African-American passers-by who objected to the defendants’ repeated use of the n-word.

So, yes, the elevator could be applied to the park case.  (And, by the way, that was a real situation that I witnessed, although was not a part of).

Back to the Bend case.  Is that racist?  Was race a motivating factor in the attack?

Honestly, I do not think so.  It seems difficult to pin skin color being the motivating factor behind Bend’s retaliation to being “snitched” out.  Bend had a right to his money (for the game), but there are proper avenues for securing that.

But that is not to state that Bend was not targeting because of ‘race.’  We will not know that until more of the details come to the surface.  But, again, I seriously doubt it was a racially-motivated crime.  Nevertheless, it is possible to see the crime’s category be elevated, given how odd the judicial system can be.

I bring up ‘race’ here for one reason.  What if it was a white boy who set a black kid on fire?

I’ll leave it at that.