Trumped

Donald Trump, loud-mouthed, New York real estate developer and GOP presidential contender is his own worst enemy.  If his lips are moving, one has to anticipate another self-inflicted wound to his empire or his reputation. There were problems in the first six sentences of his presidential candidacy announcement -- a speech that had all the flavor of an off-the-cuff rant.

Before he even started speaking, The Donald paid some members of his audience to be vocally enthusiastic and to shout appreciation.  He said: “This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.”  That’s a fact.  Most crowds occur naturally when they are loyal to a person or party.  Trump continued patting himself on the back for the crowd he brazenly bought like delivered pizza by comparing himself to other candidates.  “And, I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in. They didn’t know the air-conditioner didn’t work. They sweated like dogs.  They didn’t know the room was too big, because they didn’t have anybody there.”  After it was stuffed with actors, Trump Tower WAS the perfect venue, right Donald?

This was a segue to his international policy: Saber rattling and name-calling.  In an incoherent, hate-filled diatribe Trump listed the following countries and entities as U.S. enemies: China, Japan, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Latin America and ISIS.  Why?  His reasons were primarily based on his perception of personal competition.  Some countries were making greater financial gains than the U.S. and Trump, himself, and that’s just not fair!

The biggest problems that came from Trump’s speech were derived from his statements regarding Mexico.  He made it sound as if the Mexican government had CONSPIRED!

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.  But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.”

Reacting to these statements, Univision, America’s largest Spanish-language station, terminated its broadcasting partnership with Trump’s Miss Universe Organization.  The Organization, which is owned as a joint venture by NBCUniversal and Trump, also operates the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants.  As of today, NBCUniversal announced it also was terminating its partnership with Trump due to his “derogatory statements” regarding Mexican people.

According to CNN, Trump’s NBC program "The Apprentice" might also be on the chopping block.  CNN reported, “Following his presidential announcement, NBC said it would "re-evaluate" Trump's role on the reality show.”  Although the network reportedly indicated it would like to keep the “Celebrity Apprentice” program on the air, they reportedly do not want him to host it.  True to form, Trump pledged to sue Univision and said he might sue NBC as well.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s popularity within his own party is growing.  Currently, he is favored by 11 percent of would-be GOP voters in New Hampshire, second behind Jeb Bush's 16 percent popularity rating.  While Trump believes people support him because they appreciate his tell-it-like-it-is style, this writer believes his popularity is based solely on name recognition.

If asked, many of those polled likely would concede they did not sit through the entire broadcast of Trumps’ presidential announcement.  I have viewed and then read the transcripts of most GOP candidates' announcements.  Even if I disagree with the content of the speeches, most candidates presented logical and sequential messages.

By contrast, both in listening to and in reading The Donald’s announcement, this writer went crossed-eyed.  After quashing feelings of disgust for his arrogance, I asked: “How does any of this pertain to running a country?”  The answer is that it doesn’t.  The man is clearly an insane megalomaniac who should never be allowed to come within ten thousand light years of the mechanisms that command our nation’s nuclear or traditional arsenals.  While there are several presidential contenders who might be dangerous due to lack of experience or narrow philosophy, Trump is dangerous because he is just f---ing nuts.

Somewhere in the first 25 minutes of his 54 minute monologue, Trump declared: “Now, our country needs— our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.”

When does America or any other country not need great leadership to safeguard her people from threats foreign and domestic?  Do great leaders call constituents and other elected officials “stupid” as you did eight times, Donald?  No.  Great leaders find a way to avoid contentious language and seek viable, diplomatic solutions.

Do great leaders impugn the character of every person living in one’s neighboring country with vulgar accusations?  No, Donald, great leaders extend hands of friendship and seek solutions to mutual problems.  Great leaders do not threaten to invade countries half-way around the globe while promising to bypass diplomacy.  Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte did this and we all know how that worked out for them in the end.  Donald, great leaders do not attack other nations carelessly and invite the self-protective wrath of World War III to descend upon their nations.

When the American people get over your bombastic platitudes, they will know that you will never lead our nation.  Go ahead, Donald, spend all the money that you want.  In the end, the American people won’t be buying it.

The New Jim Crow: Caging the Evil Bird

Most Americans who were paying attention in their high school U.S. History classes are familiar with Jim Crow laws.  African American citizens over the age of 50 who grew up in the former states of the Confederacy didn’t need a history lesson about these laws because they lived them.  Here’s a refresher course.

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period which mandated “de jure” racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states.  It started in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans.  The laws mandated the segregation of all public schools, public places, public transportation, restrooms, restaurants and drinking fountains for whites and blacks.  Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior.  The laws institutionalized educational, economic and social disadvantages.

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled the segregation of public schools to be unconstitutional with their decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  Many of the remaining Jim Crow laws were overturned legislatively with the passages of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  However, countless discrimination cases continue to come before the courts even today demanding clarification for all races, women, religious adherents, and members of the LGBT community.

Given the discriminatory prosecution, incarceration, and the resulting systemic disadvantages faced by people ensnared in the War on Drugs, it is clear that Jim Crow is still alive and well.  The new Jim Crow is now an epidemic that swept the nation.

In 2012, author Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow credited modern drug laws with a new wave of discrimination.  Richard Nixon was the first president to actively target drug abuse as “public enemy number one” in a 1971 special message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control.  Nixon called for federal funding to prevent addiction and to facilitate rehabilitation.  The propaganda of the day made it clear that drugs were to be treated as crimes that would not be tolerated.  Nothing has changed.

Drug related arrest rates remained fairly stable through the 1970’s, but in the 1980’s with the popularity of crack and powder cocaine, everything changed.  Though arrest rates for all crimes rose 28 percent in this decade, drug arrests increased by and astounding 126 percent.  According to a Washington Post article in 2010, statistics from 1998 demonstrate wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-American drug users reportedly made up 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.  Upon release from prison, these people often reportedly were denied public assistance and licenses.

Many community activists, church leaders, and even President Obama have pointed out the disastrous effects of these public policies in communities with high African American populations.  Cities that have erupted into riots in recent years could not withstand the losses of brothers, fathers, husbands, and sons.  The communities could not survive the fact that these former felons could not find jobs and often had to return to drug sales or petty theft just to eat each day.

One politician in particular has spoken out repeatedly on this discriminatory system.  Surprisingly, it is the Republican Senator and presidential aspirant from Kentucky, Rand Paul.  When he announced his candidacy for president on April 7, 2015 Paul stated: “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally, and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”  He points out repeatedly in speeches and radio interviews that one-third of African American males are banned from voting due to the War on Drugs.

Paul blames mandatory minimum sentencing standards and the fact that many state and local governments still treat minor drug offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanor crimes.  By making very minor offenses felonies, the person convicted of the crime is denied the right to vote, cannot own a fire arm, becomes the victim of future job discrimination, poverty, and much more.

While all other Republican presidential candidates seem to be avoiding conversations about race as if it were Ebola, I can appreciate Paul’s fortitude in this regard.  He is right, of course, and he is not backing down.  It will not make me vote for him; but if I ever met him, I would thank him for his stance.

Which brings me to my final thought:  If this problem is so obvious to the gentleman from Kentucky, a state with a population that was over 86 percent white in the last census, why isn’t this obvious to everyone?  How can America continue to act like the three monkeys that refuse to hear, see, and speak of this evil?  Jim Crow never went away.  That evil bird is still pecking at the beating hearts of our citizens and communities.  If there was ever a bird that needed a cage, that’s the one.

Reading the Letter of the Same-Sex Marriage Law

Following the landmark ruling in the case of Obergefell et al. v. Hodges by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, people across America took to the streets in celebration.  The Syllabus section of the Court’s ruling said the only purpose of the law is this:

“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”

Issuance and recognition of marriage licenses have always been expectations of white male-and-female couples of consenting age.  This was not always a privilege that mixed race couples enjoyed.  It was not until 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that banning interracial marriage was a Constitutional violation.  Now, people of common gender also have the legal right to marry and share common benefits such as the right to adopt, visit sick loved ones, and bequeath their belongings in death.  When love won the day, the tears of joy cried in the chamber of SCOTUS were as justified as the cheers in the street.

But many have disagreed strongly with the five assenting Justices.  Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas all felt the urgent need to express opposing opinions.  Historically, it is far more common for one Justice to write a dissenting opinion in a matter, but all four?  Clearly this is an emotional issue surrounded by misinterpretation.  (Read the opinions here.)

While Kennedy’s opinion relied heavily on the “equal protection clause,” Thomas’s dissent said: “The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.”  What Thomas fails to understand, however, is that same-sex couples were routinely deprived of life, liberty and property in states like Georgia.

Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent began by saying that the Court’s decision was a “threat to American democracy.”  In his argument for the status quo, he went on to say: “The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.”  As a person who was once a certified tax preparer, I can say unequivocally the Federal tax code applying to same-sex couples was ridiculously cumbersome.  As recently as 2012, many same-sex couples opted to file as single and head of household to avoid the trouble.  As for inheritance rules, well, they were random, capricious and absolutely unfair.

Justice Roberts’ dissent focused on the rights of voters and state legislatures to determine their own laws with regard to approval or disapproval of the recognition of the legality of same-sex marriages.  Simply said: “…(T)his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.”

Justice Alito was of the same opinion.  He said: “Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”  Such an arrangement invites expensive, ugly political campaigns against gays and lesbians.

Many politicians also had to add their voices to the chorus of dissent.  Senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz went on Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday afternoon and called the combination of rulings on Obamacare and same-sex marriage “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”  Cruz went on to say: “…this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state.  It has no connection to the United States Constitution.  They are simply making it up.”

Of course, that is simply wrong.  (Shame on you, Harvard law school graduate!)  Before this ruling, there were 37 states in America that already condoned same-sex unions.  This law does not strike down the laws of those states.  The remaining 13 states either did not support gay marriage at all, or did not acknowledge legal marriages performed in other states.  The law says these states must now do both in the interest of equality.

Some pseudo-religious organizations based their defiance to the law on the grounds of “religious liberty.” The American Family Association responded by saying, in part:  “There is no doubt that this morning’s ruling will imperil religious liberty in America, as individuals of faith who uphold time-honored marriage and choose not to advocate for same-sex unions will now be viewed as extremists. But to the Court, we send this unequivocal message: We will continue to uphold God’s plan for marriage between one man and one woman, and we call on all Christians to continue to pray for the nation, and for those whose religious liberties will be directly impacted by this ruling.”

Wrong again.  Section IV of the court’s opinion said:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

This statement tells me that churches that do not condone same-sex marriages still have the right to refuse to perform weddings for gays and lesbians.  Walking hand-in hand with the principle right to free speech and the right to associate, evangelical pastors can tell these couple “No, we just don’t do that here.”  While some may argue that there will be someone somewhere who will try to take up a legal challenge to a church’s refusal based on this SCOTUS ruling, an argument against the church will fail immediately at the lower court level.  The lower court ruling will also be upheld in appeal based on the supremacy of the First Amendment.

I believe this ruling is wonderful for gay and lesbian couples.  I could say many, many things about my views on the topic, but no one could have spoken more eloquently than did Justice Kennedy in the closing paragraphs of the court’s opinion.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

And with that, the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court was reversed.  Amen.

Playing Dumb About Racism

In the aftermath of the murders at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, many people have weighed in on the tragedy.  Scenes from that city where thousands marched across the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge on Sunday told me that white and black people share the knowledge that this was a hate crime.  They held hands with strangers united in sadness and in the hope that they could heal their community.

The suspect reportedly had a clear message for his victims.  The only adult survivor of the massacre, a woman who feigned her death by lying in a pool of her son’s blood, told authorities what Dylann Roof said before he opened fire: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go."

Unfortunately, not everybody seems to understand this message of racism and hate.  Some news pundits and politicians are ignoring it all together.  For example, when “America’s Newsroom,” host Martha MacCallum was joined by guests who blamed access to fire arms and lack of mental health care for the crime, she waved these reasonable arguments away.  “We’re a very unique society and that’s a very wonderful thing, in large part,” she said. “But that may be a contributing factor here.”

Fox News anchors Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck ignored the racial implications of this hate crime and spun it into a crime against Christianity.  Their guest, Pastor E.W. Jackson attempted to make a case for arming ministers by citing “rising hostility toward Christians in this country.”  Naturally, Doocy agreed, calling the hate crime label “exceptional” and one which was determined by authorities “because it was apparently a white guy in a black church.”  Doocy appeared to be confused.  It had to be an attack on religion.

Taking a lead from Fox perhaps, Pennsylvania’s former Senator and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum echoed his belief that Roof attacked his victims because of their religious faith rather than the color of their skin.  South Carolina’s Senator Lindsay Graham, another presidential candidate, agreed.  Roof, he said, was just another one of many “people out there looking for Christians to kill them.”  On Friday, Jeb Bush also joined the chorus of ignorance.  He claimed that he didn’t know what motivated Roof, but urged Christians to come together in reflection and prayer.

The only Republican presidential candidate who got it right was Dr. Ben Carson.  Carson has said a lot of really strange things in public, but his op-ed piece in USA Today was pitch perfect.  He likened denial of the racist element in this crime to being a doctor who won’t tell his patient a medical diagnosis for fear of offending them.  The article said:

“I understand the sensitivities. To some, calling the events in Charleston, S.C., a hate crime reinforces a stigma, which they have fought hard to put behind them. But refusing to call it what it is — racism — is a far more dangerous proposition.”

“We know what's at stake here, so let's stop all the interpretive dance around the obvious. Was it a depraved act of violence? Of course. Was it an act of unspeakable evil? Affirmative. Was it an attack on innocent Christians? Manifestly so. Is this killer a sick individual? In my professional opinion, yes, he is. What is his sickness? It's the sickness of racism, a spiritual sickness that distorts the mind and heart and causes irrational and baseless fear and hatred in people of all colors.”

Well stated.  It is a rare day that I agree with most of Ben Carson’s ideas.  Today, I applaud every word and urge readers to read the rest of this very thoughtful article.

In the Eye of the Kansas Tornedo

People of Kansas, I am not picking on you.  I am going to attack your leaders in your defense, however, because you need someone in your corner.  On Friday, Kansas legislators ended the longest legislative session in state history.  Every single day that Kansas legislators worked overtime it cost at least $43,000.   Mathematically, that was approximately $860,000 (yes, just south of a million dollars at a time when the state was dealing with a budget shortfall of $600 million.) This estimate does not include the expenses associated with paying for the capitol staff personnel who also worked overtime.

Now state leaders are balancing the budget by driving the taxation bus over all low-income Kansas taxpayers and their children.  The state cut funding for education by $127 million in the middle of a school year, an action that has been deemed unconstitutional repeatedly by state courts.  Safety nets, retirement benefits and funds for medication for the mentally ill were slashed.  Now, how much bang are Kansans going to be getting for their tax bucks?  The answer is obvious: Less than zero.

Rather than simply repealing the bad laws passed in 2012 and 2013, Kansas legislators decided to approve regressive taxes – sales taxes – to balance the budget.  General sales taxes were raised from 6.15 percent to 6.5 percent.  The sin tax on tobacco also was increased and will generate an estimated $384 million.  Ironically, when the cost associated with smoking increases significantly, many smokers (predictably) make the decision to kick the habit, thus reducing this potential revenue stream for the state.

While many states do not tax purchases of food, Kansas does.  If a Kansas family earns less than $30,615 annually, they can apply for a $500 tax credit.  Families earning more, however, will be paying an extra $700 per year just to put food in their mouths.  It is only plain to see that the families who have the least to spare will be harmed the most by the budget decisions that were signed into law.

Fortunately, the state budget bill partially reversed business tax cuts.  “Pass-through” businesses are small businesses like single-owner entities or limited liability corporations (LLCs).  Kansas Governor Brownback eliminated taxation of these entities.  As a result, many businesses reinvented themselves to save money.  The decision cost Kansas almost $207 million in 2013 alone.  The restoration of approximately eleven percent of the business tax could generate $23.7 million and will not significantly harm corporations or job growth in the state.  Although Brownback stridently claimed that he would veto this portion of the budget bill, in the end, that was a lie.  He was over a barrel and passing it was the only rational thing to do.

Certainly, extreme situations such as Kansas’s financial state of affairs called for extreme reactions.  Unfortunately, the actions taken by these legislators were extremely wrong.  A momentary, self-inflicted crisis has been averted.  But, as Think Progress writer Alan Pyke pointed out in his June 16 article, “lawmakers will face another $400 million projected gap in the following year unless revenues from Brownback’s slashed income tax system leap up at an unusual rate.”

Kansas, you need to clean your political house.  The Brownback administration has harmed and will continue to harm your state.  The economic ignorance of your governor, his stubborn adherence to the Laffer curve and Republican policies designed to favor the rich and corporations are now and will continue to result in life-threatening damage to people who are already living on the bubble.  After education, what is cut next? Funding for hospitals, police, fire and emergency response?   Can we predict that Kansas might experience a tornado?  What then?

Be bold, Kansas!  Be bold.  Start a recall effort now.

The Insanity of Hatred

Dylann Storm Roof sat in a Bible study for an hour on Wednesday night at the Emmanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.  Everyone was very nice to him, he said.  He almost couldn’t do it.  But, he wanted to start a race war.  In the end, he arose, shot, and killed nine innocent people because they were Black.  Then he fled the scene of his crime, driving north to the neighboring state.

This young man will retain a public defender who probably will attempt an insanity defense when he comes to trial.  Pleading innocence by reason of insanity would be the only reasonable thing to do in a court of law.  The media supports the idea that this is the act of a "crazy" person.  No “sane” person would kill a room full of nice, faithful, peaceful people, would they?

A sane person who is a bigot would, though.  Mirriam Webster defines a bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”  While bigotry is irrational, there is no mention of insanity in this definition.

In contrast, Mirriam Webster defines insanity in the following way:

1:  a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)

2:  such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

3 a:  extreme folly or unreasonableness.  b:  something utterly foolish or unreasonable.

People who are insane are disorganized thinkers.  Many cannot retain jobs or keep their living spaces clean without help.  Though some forms of insanity are expressed in compulsive behaviors or obsessive thoughts, those expressions are more crippling than they are conducive to forward progress.  This was not apparently the case with Roof.  According to CNN, Roof’s roommate, Joey Meek, reportedly said that Roof had been “plotting something for six months.”  Roof also reportedly reloaded his .45 caliber weapon five times during the assault.  These are not hallmarks of a disorganized mind.

In my mind the real insanity is that almost any “sane” person with a few hundred dollars can purchase a firearm with extreme ease almost everywhere in America.  While the NRA and 2^nd Amendment supporters cringe at the idea of making the acquisition of a firearm even a little bit more complicated for “law abiding” citizens, it is obvious that crimes like this would not occur if guns were less available.

I had to ask: Why a race war?  How could Roof benefit personally from a race war?  I pondered that for a while and arrived at this conclusion.  In riots such as those in Baltimore and in Los Angeles in 1992, when people of color took to the streets, the damage they caused was to their own homes and communities.  Whites were responsible for depriving the communities of education and opportunity while suppressing and abusing the rights of citizens on a daily basis. Roof knew this.  He knew that he didn’t have to be anywhere nearby to start a fire.  All that Roof had to do was light the match that caused African Americans to burn themselves down.

That is not insanity.  That is hatred.

Turn Your Head and Cough, Please

On June 15, the 4^th Circuit court of appeals struck down North Carolina’s controversial A Woman’s Right to Know Act.  The law required doctors and ultrasound technicians to perform an ultrasound on pregnant women seeking abortion services to display and describe the image of the fetus to the patient during the procedure even if she actively “averts her eyes” and “refuses to hear.”  The law’s intent, ironically, is to provide “informed consent” and was consensual for neither the patient nor the attending medical care provider.  Even the conservative North Carolina appeals panel recognized the unconstitutionality of the law.

The unanimous decision which upheld a lower court decision was authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.  Not only did he agree that the provision violated a doctor’s First Amendment Right to free speech, he also acknowledged the cruel and humiliating situation for the female patient.  His ruling says in part:

“Informed consent frequently consists of a fully-clothed conversation between the patient and physician, often in the physician’s office… This provision, however, finds the patient half-naked or disrobed on her back on an examination table, with an ultrasound probe either on her belly or inserted into her vagina. … Rather than engaging in a conversation calculated to inform, the physician must continue talking regardless of whether the patient is listening. … Forcing this experience on a patient over her objections in this manner interferes with the decision of a patient not to receive information that could make an indescribably difficult decision even more traumatic and could “actually cause harm to the patient.” … (I)t is intended to convey not the risks and benefits of the medical procedure to the patient’s own health, but rather the full weight of the state’s moral condemnation.”

I applaud this ruling as a woman who has endured several ultrasounds to determine the health and well-being of my unborn children. I can fully imagine how horrible it would be to suffer such humiliation if I was seeking to terminate an unwanted or a tragically unsustainable pregnancy.  Ultrasounds require the patient to have a full bladder which is uncomfortable enough.  If the ultrasound technology being used was intravaginal, I most certainly would feel that I was being raped by a government that forced a stranger to maintain unwanted contact with my vagina while he or she robotically read from a lawfully imposed script.

North Carolina was not the only state to pass such a law.  There currently are 10 states with mandatory ultrasound laws.  Wisconsin Governor Scott K. Walker also was dealt a blow by this ruling.  The rumored presidential candidate defended his state’s law by saying this:

“I’m pro-life…  We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound…  Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound …  I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It’s just a cool thing out there.”

Governor, while you are thinking about your boys, think about this.  What if men were subjected to intrusive procedures like this one?  Say, for example, you were considering a therapy for an enlarged prostate gland.  In the middle of your proctological examination while you are bent over the examination table with your doctor’s digits in your rectum and your scrotum cupped in his hand, image having to listen to him recite a script regarding your examination and your treatment options.

Please turn your head and cough.  Again.  And, one more time, please.

Arpaio Grande

According to a Los Angeles Times article (May 24), Maricopa County Arizona top cop, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, wants his legion of supporters to pay for his self-made legal financial woes.  According to that article, Arpaio’s May 21 email reportedly stated in part:

“In some instances I have to personally pay for attorneys to represent me in these cases," and, "I do not have the personal wealth or the wherewithal to keep up with the costly demands of paying for attorneys to defend me.”
Boo hoo.

In this writer’s estimation, this cruel, egotistical, misogynistic outlaw made his own bed many times over and now should be forced to lie in it with all of the insects it no doubt attracts.

Arpaio was born in 1932 in Springfield, Massachusetts to Italian immigrants (ironically).  If Wikipedia.com is to be believed, his mother died in childbirth (she would have died from shame and embarrassment otherwise) and he was raised by his father, a grocery store owner.  He reportedly worked with his father until he joined the U.S. Army at the age of 18.  After his discharge in 1954, he became a civilian police officer.  Around 1957, Arpaio began working as a DEA agent and remained with the agency for 25 years.  In 1992, he ran for and successfully won the Sheriff’s seat in Maricopa County.  Since his inauguration in 1993, he has been a tenacious and incredibly vile fixture in Arizona’s political landscape.

Arpaio’s tenure has been marked by archaic, cruel, and bizarre governance.  In 1995, he re-instituted chain gangs.  While these chain gangs are voluntary for women and juveniles, it is not clear that they were voluntary for male inmates.  Given the life-threatening summer heat in Arizona, one should immediately wonder if he is trying to kill his wards.  Certainly, if his Tent City is any illustration, he is decidedly dismissive of the effects of exposure to heat that can soar over 110 degrees.  The temperature within the interiors of the tents is akin to the interior of locked vehicles where it would be illegal to leave a dog, let alone a person.

In November of 2008, Slate Magazine reported Arpaio instituted a plan to force all prisoners to wear pink underwear and fed them rations of “fortified bread and water.”  In the same year (and again in 2010), federal court judge Neil V. Wake ruled that conditions in Maricopa jails were unconstitutional.  The problems listed included the use of molding food, excessive heat, severe overcrowding, denial of medical and mental health services, and failure to allow prisoners access to toilets, toilet paper, and soap.  While Arpaio justified his practices by saying that jail was supposed to punish criminals, most people incarcerated in Maricopa County’s jails are not convicted felons, but are awaiting trial.  Let me state unequivocally – nothing justifies cruelty and these procedures harken to Third World despots.

The list of systematic, documented cruelties against incarcerated persons is so lengthy and sick-minded it is maddening.  It is nearly as long as the list of public servants, officials and journalists that he has legally attacked simply because they opposed him politically or publicly in some way.  Between 2008 and 2010, Arpaio enlisted the aid of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas in calling for numerous public corruption investigations that were excessively costly to the public.  Eleven people including judges, and county supervisors were accused of corruption.  All of these individuals were exonerated of corruption charges and the county was forced to settle for over $45 million, a cost that did not include civil staff time.  The cases were such an egregious exploitation of power, that Thomas was disbarred by the findings of a panel of the Arizona Supreme Court.  Somehow, the Sheriff held on and was re-elected.

If Arpaio was actually a good top cop who was overseeing justice on some other level, this writer could understand why he still remains in office, but he is not.  Between 2004 and 2007, more than 400 sex crimes reported to the Sheriff’s office were inadequately investigated, or not investigated at all.  Over 30 of these cases involved child molestations.  One case involved a mentally disabled 13-year-old named Sabrina Morrison who was repeatedly raped and ultimately impregnated by her uncle.  The case was botched by investigators even though clear evidence of rape was gleaned in a rape kit.  The victim was then victimized by her family; but, after four years of incompetence, her perpetrator, Patrick Morrison, ultimately was sentenced to 24 years behind bars in 2012.  She is now reportedly suing Arpaio and Maricopa County for $30 million.

The county’s arrest rate also inclines one to believe that people are frequently taken into custody under false pretense.  According to an ABC news report in December 2010, at least 75% of criminal cases in Maricopa County were cleared by “exception” rather than arrest.  In 2008, the Goldwater Institute found the number of exceptions was closer to 82%.  After their original report, Nightline reportedly contacted Maricopa County again and learned that the actual number of crimes cleared by arrest was a dismal 944 out of 7,346 crimes, or 15%.  This is no surprise.

Famously, Arpaio is best known for racial profiling and pursuing all Hispanics as illegal immigrants.  “Unconstitutional policing” led to a class action lawsuit in 2007 and the May 10, 2012 Department of Justice filing of United States v. Maricopa County, et al.  In other communities around the United States the pattern of discriminatory policing usually has been perpetrated against African American citizens.  In Phoenix and surrounding communities, the people targeted are Latino.  This is another one of those powder kegs that is bound to ignite when enough Latino lives are disrupted, abused or taken by biased and lawless members of the Sheriff’s Department while their equally lawless and biased superior scoffs, waves a dismissive hand, and looks the other way.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s legal problems now stem from his defiant refusal to act upon the rulings against him and his ruthless tactics.  Clearly he has frightened everyone who can unseat him so badly that there is no concerted political effort worthy of such a feat.  At the age of 83, it is time for him to step down for no other reason than to relieve the good citizens of Arizona from the on-going and predictable burden of his parasitic presence.  One could hope that we could excuse his insanity as one commonly associated with old-age; but, alas, it appears to be a pattern that must be eradicated by a fearless and forthright electorate.

The Least Patriotic Act

It is a rare day when I can say the words: “I agreed with Rand Paul.”  The gentleman from Kentucky filibustered for 10 hours on the Senate floor Wednesday against the overreach given to the NSA (and many other governmental agencies) by the Bush-era Patriot Act.  While it was probably a political ploy designed to raise his stature in the polls and differentiate himself from rival Republican presidential hopefuls, for once he was making sense.

When this group of laws was enacted in October of 2001, I was absolutely outraged.  This knee-jerk legislation was one of the purest examples of the Hegelian Principle I had ever seen.  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19^th century philosopher who presented an evil three-step plan that allowed regal or elected leaders to gain more control over their constituents by creating hysteria.  Step 1: Create a problem or conflict and build it up out of proportion.  Step 2: Build opposition to the problem by using the media on a daily basis until people are clamoring for a remedy.  Step 3: Offer the public a solution in the form of a new law that they never would have supported before.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was such a law.  Most people are not fully aware of what the USA PATRIOT acronym means.  The name stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".  The law is comprised of 10 Titles which changed several previous laws including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.  The portion of the law which typically is the target of most public derision is Title II which allows various agencies to use “Enhanced Surveillance Procedures” to snoop into the wire, oral and electronic communications of virtually anyone in the name of “public safety.”

Our government used a terrible day in our history to play on the emotions of our nation.  Terror came to our shores and America did what it has always done when a Bush was controlling the White House: We started a war.  Yes, we would start a war on terror and implement all sorts of cloak and dagger programs to find those bad people who were living among us while plotting our collective demise.  But after implementing an invasive law, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of civilian casualties are we any closer to realizing victory against terrorism?

Clearly, I am not privy to confidential governmental operations.  Some of this sneaking and peeking may actually have helped the FBI identify money laundering operations, fraud, or criminal plots.  But, for the average person, how often can we point to the Patriot Act and say that it resulted in preventing lone wolf attackers like the Boston Marathon bombers from doing their worst?  So often we hear about people like Ryan Giroux, a man who killed one and injured five others on March 18 in Mesa, Arizona when he went on a shooting spree.  He reportedly was well known to police and had a criminal history that included murder.  If that sort of behavior isn’t terrifying I don’t know what is; and, yet, how did the Patriot Act prevent it?

Our civil rights have been deeply infringed, but the average citizen remains blissfully unaware of the level to which we have been laid bare.  There is no privacy.  Our personal information isn’t safe from common thieves or from common bureaucrats.  Congress has the opportunity to rein in these surveillance programs, but likely will do very little of any significance. .“Are you really willing to give up your liberty for security?” Senator Paul asked his colleagues.  Unfortunately, maintaining the status quo will likely be the undebated Congressional answer to that question.

Cruz Control

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you are going to be downright annoyed with me after reading this post; but, so be it.  As a political addict, you can imagine how intriguing the presidential candidates’ announcements are.  Certainly Marco Rubio’s doctrine rang with the clarion sound of rattling sabers.  Inane, inaccurate, and trite as it was it didn’t feel half as dangerous as Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential announcement.

Cruz is not a stupid man.  He attended private schools as a child and began studying economics when he was just 13 years old.  Cruz earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton and went on to study law at Harvard.  Is he a genius?  Possibly.  I can respect a person with a strong mind.  I am an agnostic, but I also can accept people with strong religious beliefs.  But when the smart person with the strong beliefs is a first-term Senator who decides to make his Christian religion the central message of his political campaign – and ostensibly his political platform – well, now I have a problem.

Senator Cruz decided to make his announcement at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Some of you may not remember Mr. Falwell.  He was rabidly opposed to homosexuals, and was famous for supporting segregation in schools in the 1970’s.  Racism was the only reason he founded the Moral Majority in 1975.  Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Falwell appeared on his pal Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club program and controversially stated: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"  He later was forced to apologize for that hateful sewage.  Thank goodness his vitriolic voice was silenced in 2007.  Rest in pieces.

Now, let’s fast forward to Ted Cruz on March 23, 2015.  Liberty University provided Cruz with a ready-made audience on the Monday morning when he appeared with his charming. pink-clad wife and daughters.  The students of Liberty University are required to attend “church” in this forum on Monday mornings.  All applauded and obediently appreciated their guest speaker.  No one should have been surprised that Cruz invoked the name of God nine times and the name of Jesus Christ three times in a speech that called upon “courageous conservatives” to help him “stand for (religious) liberty.”  He did his level best to throw meat to the hungry Tea Party tigers.

However, Liberty University also is symbolic to Cruz for another reason.  The university filed a lawsuit within hours after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2010, a law that Cruz has stridently (and futilely) opposed since he took office in 2012.  Most presidential candidates declare their intentions in their home states.  Cruz is fairly popular in his home state of Texas.  Why, then did he choose Virginia?  I suspect he needed to create a bit of political theater.  Feeding the children of the Moral Majority also fed the Tea Party; and, Cruz served up God and family, sobriety, and Patrick Henry.

The games have begun.  I can’t wait to hear what Jeb Bush has to say when he finally stops sucking from the nipple of his Super PAC and makes his candidacy official.

The Wizard of Odds

On November 5, 2014, no one could have been more surprised than your humble host to learn that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) and all of the Republican members of his legislature were re-elected.  As ballotpedia.org noted: “there was no change to the majority control of the Kansas House of Representatives. The Republican Party increased their number of seats held from 93 to 98. The Democratic Party lost five seats, dropping from 32 to 27 following the election.”

Off-year elections often are met with apathy and yield conservative results.  In my mind, however, given the current state of financial affairs in the great state of Kansas, that was surprising to me.  Who in the world would support the same cast of lunatics who created ridiculous tax cuts that resulted in cuts to EVERYTHING including schools, state office hours, primary and secondary jobs, government staff pension plans and public services?

Apparently, Kansans's primary source of news and information is almost singularly generated by Fox News and its ultra-conservative culture of unreasonable insanity.

If you are not familiar with the economic results of the work of the Governor and his minions since 2009, let me enlighten you, gentle reader.  The State of Kansas decided to adopt the Laffer Curve.  (I wish I could make that name up, but it always makes me smirk.)  This is heady economic stuff so, stick with me.  Economists love models and Arthur Laffer decided that he could generate a model in which a government(s) could reduce tax revenue and, as a corollary, generate increased revenue.  Isn't that confusing?  How?  The whole idea is that if you put money back into peoples’ hands they will support the economy rather than using the money for personal benefit.

Right.  Sure.  Humans always think of helping others.  There is no evidence that the Laffer Curve ever worked.  Effectively, it is laughable.

But what happened in Kansas?  I believe it was (a field of poppies) or an economically predictable response that led merchants in the state-split city of Kansas City, Missouri to run across the border to generate new businesses so that they could reduce their state tax burdens.  The new rules created competition.  And Hallelujah! Investors.com heralded the exciting news that “Tax Cuts Work!”  There was job creation! (Who is surprised?)  Toot that horn.  (Please, don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the 9,800 people who are now gainfully employed.  Good for them.)

Forbes followed up the next day on the gush of affection for statistical job creation with a report (including awesome charts and graphs) of their own.  Down in the end of that article, (clearly the part that no one reads) is the truth:

“To be certain, there is still a lot of work to be done by state officials, the legislature, and the governor in order to correct a projected $600 million shortfall. According to the Associated Press report, the legislature is considering changes related to public pensions (a projected $9.8 billion gap), increasing fees charged by top managed health care companies from 1 percent to 5 percent (which could bring in an additional $80 million annually), and improving management of mental health drugs for Medicaid recipients, which Brownback believes could save the state more than $8 million. Also being considered is a variety of tax increases.”

So, essentially, all of that happy talk about job creation is misdirection.  There is a $600 million gap and the Kansas kids want to close it by going after retirees and the mentally ill while increasing the cost of health care for everyone. Excrement is always warm when it is fresh and always smells just as sweetly.

As Shakespeare said: “There’s the rub.” Or, as Sting and the Dire Straits sang in their 1985 music video there will be:  “Money for nothing’…”

Go get 'em, Governor Brownback. The next thing he will do is axe elementary school programs... Oh, wait.  He already did.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat

CNN mouthpiece Wolf Blitzer looked at the urban unrest in Baltimore this week and claimed that it was “hard to believe” that he was seeing looting in the streets of America so long after the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  

Really, Wolf?

As if he had never seen Ferguson last year, or Atlanta, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Miami, Detroit, or the Watts riots like all of the rest of the people of his age did.  Urban unrest occurs as frequently as geographically related economic and employment downturns because they walk hand-in-hand.  When people are starving and deprived of things that they need (Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs) and want for a significant period of time, they will react to the situation.  And, if the situation provides a powerless and voiceless human with an opportunity to take what she thinks she needs (like diapers and baby formula), she will boost that stuff in a second.

I do not condone looting, stealing or damaging property. This is lawless. This is a crime. This is a time at which families should ask the perpetrators “how did you get that?”  Looting is not an issue-related protest.  It is a different kind of protest.

There are only a few kinds of protest.  There is a peaceful, issue-specific, active protest like marching and chanting.  There is a peaceful, inactive protest like a sit-in or a die-in.  Then, there is an active, violent protest that has nothing to do with any specific situation that speaks volumes about a localized powder keg that was ignited by the factors that created it.  Welcome to the riot.

Writer Saul Williams said:  “Legislation won't necessarily start a riot. But the right song can make someone pick up a chair.”

In Baltimore, the song included lyrics about Freddie Gray, “nickel rides,” 35 percent African American male unemployment ,high, high poverty rates, and systemic police brutality against anyone who isn't White.  One cannot legislate common sense, and justice seldom enters into the mixing of the legislative sausage.

So, today, news agencies are aiding in the finger-pointing in the great state of Maryland.  The (Black) mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), allegedly was “late” in identifying a problem. (Not).  The (White) governor of Maryland, Lawrence Joseph "Larry" Hogan, Jr. (R) , said that he signed an executive order “immediately” to involve National Guards as soon as she requested additional aid in her city.  Later, Governor Hogan made it seem as if a riot should have been foreseeable when all of the previous reactions to police brutality were peaceful.

White on Black.  Republican against Democrat.  White on Black.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Black lives matter.

All lives matter.

Stop it.