2010

As the year draws to a close it is time for Joyce's Take to look back at 2010 in our annual "Year in Review."
Ahh, since we didn't do one last year this is actually our first one. Well let's hope to make this a yearly tradition, and hope nothing happens tomorrow that is important enough to be included in this post, so I'm calling for a worldwide day of inaction.
Now you may be surprised to learn that there were a whole bunch of things that happened during 2010 that are not included in this post. I'm surprised too! But I try to make these posts manageable to take in (read) on a daily business, with the average length around 1, 000 words. Quite often it's a little bit more than that, sometimes quite a bit more when I get carried away, or there's just so much information that needs to be included. This will probably be one of those posts. I don't know, I haven't written it yet. Let's find out, shall we?
I've included some of what I consider the major stories of the year, deaths of individuals that were of particular importance to me, or influenced me in some way, and a few things that happened to people I know, or friends of Joyce's Take.
2010 has been a year of personal growth for me. Two whole inches. There's been a few setbacks in the country as a whole, but we've made some gains as well. That's how life is sometimes. I hope 2010 was a prosperous year for you dear readers. It hasn't been for too many of us.
And I hope 2011 is a better one for all of us.
Well let's get started shall we?
We might as well start with January.

January

The year stated off poorly with a 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti at seven minutes to five o'clock on the afternoon of Jan. 12th, one of the poorest countries in the world, and one of the lest prepared for this catastrophe. The government estimated that 230,000 people were killed, 300,000 injured, and over a 1,000,000 made homeless. They also estimated that 250,000 homes and 30,000 businesses had collapsed or were severely damaged. It was the region's worst quake in 200 years. Today, due to the country’s abysmal roads and lack of adequate health centers cholera is killing at least one person every 30 minutes.


On January 21 democracy died in the United States of America...
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/01/day-democracy-died.html
...when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision ruled that corporations had the same rights as people (but not the responsibilities) and that money equaled free speech, in the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission case. The conservative "activist judges" paved the way for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections, even foreign corporations, thus allowing them unduly influence in the election process. The Republican Party, the Corporate Party believed to be the major beneficiary of this decision, approved the ruling claiming it was a victory for free speech. The President during his State of the Union Address, said, "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." It is unclear how much influence this ruling had on the November 2010 midterm elections as any and all money the Republicans raised seemed to be matched by Democratic donations. We shall see.

On Jan 27 one of my favorite authors (The Catcher in the Rye, Raise High the Roof Beam Carpenters, 9 Stories), Jerome David Salinger died at his home in New Hampshire of "natural causes." He was 91 years old.

Some of us from both hotels also went on our first bowling expedition to Pasadena on that day, with case managers Paul and Erin.

They lost.

On January 29, Scott Roeder was found guilty of the murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. This was a clear signal to the so-called "right to life" crowd that it is not okay to kill people in their efforts to protect the rights of embryos.


February

On February 2nd, my lovely case manager and I had breakfast at the International House of Pancakes due to the fact that I had won the Case Management Appointment Contest.

I was the only contestant.

We both had the Rooty Tooty Fresh and Fruitys.

February 18th, Joseph Stack III, 53, of Austin, Texas, crashed his private aircraft into an office of the Internal Revenue Service, in Austin, killing himself and one employee. Apparently he was upset after the I.R.S. had taken all of his money.

February 23rd, Jaxen Lee Johnston, my grandnephew, was born. He was 0 days old at the time.

He's much older now.


March

One goes in, one goes out. On March 6th, my friend Robert Bray passed away in his sleep sometime during the previous night.
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/03/robert-bray-jr_28.html
He is till very much missed.

The veteran actor Peter Graves also passed away, on March 14th, four days before his next birthday. He battled giant grasshoppers in Chicago in the film "Beginning of the End," accepted impossible missions in "Mission Impossible," let us learn about others on the "Biography," T.V. series, and was Captain Clarence Oveur in the two "Airplane," movies. He was 84 when he died of a heart attack.

On March 21st the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a bill to overhaul the country's health care system, and sent it to the President to be signed into law. Along with the The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (signed into law on March 30th) the bills, among other things, allowed children to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until the age of 26, prevented insurance companies from denying coverage due to a patient's "pre-existing conditions," subsidized private insurance for low- and middle-income Americans, and required all Americans to have some sort of health insurance. The budget office estimated that the law would reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years. This was the greatest attempt at change in the nation's health care system in over 100 years. It did not please everybody. Progressives lamented the fact that a single payer, universal system was not put into place (or even considered, despite promises to the contrary), and the Republicans, calling it Obamacare, we're against anything that President Obama did, even if it was beneficial for the majority of Americans, and want to repeal it.

Good luck with that.

On March 24th the United States and Russia agreed to lower the limit of deployed strategic warheads and launchers (that would be those big intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles that can still wipe out the entire planet) by 25% and 50% respectively, along with a new inspection regime. That's a pretty good thing. This treaty would still have to be ratified by the legislative branches of both countries.

That day actor Robert Culp of "The Outer Limits," and "I Spy," fame, died, also of an apparent heart attack, near his home in the Hollywood Hills. He was 79 years old.


April

On the 5th of April an explosion caused the deaths of 29 people in the Upper Branch mine, the worst mine disaster since 1970. The owner and operator of the mine, Massey Energy, in 2009, was fined a total of $382,000 for "serious" unrepentant violations for lacking ventilation and proper equipment plans as well as failing to utilize its safety plan properly. In the previous month, the authorities cited the mine for 57 safety infractions. In the two days before the explosion the mine received two citations, and in the last five years has been cited for 1,342 safety violations... this would indicate a certain pattern of disregard for the safety of its employees. The CEO of Massey Energy, a Don Blankenship, has received criticism for his apparent disregard for safety, and considering Massey Energy is the sixth largest coal company in the country, that's all he's likely to receive.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (former bass player for Led Zeppelin) announced April 9th, that he would retire next summer, after serving on the bench for 35 years. Justice Stevens, the most senior member of the court, had proved to be one of the most reliably liberal-voting judges. President Obama nominated United States Solicitor General (the person appointed by the federal government to represent the U.S. to the Supreme Court) Elena Kagan to replace him. She was confirmed by the Senate and joined the bench on August 7, 2010.

On April 20th the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded killing 11 people and resulting in what many consider the greatest ecological disaster in the history of the United States:
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/05/spill.html
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/05/spill-2.html
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/05/spill-3.html

An actual Washington Post Headline for April 26th: "Amid Outrage Over Civilian Deaths In Pakistan, CIA Turns To Smaller Missiles."

May

On May 5th I won the SRHT "Tenant of the Year" award... among many other prizes:
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/05/renant-of-year.html

On May 27th the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revised previous figures, and estimated that 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil per day were spilling into the Gulf of Mexico due to the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon collapse of the previous month. The government previously believed that the rig was leaking only 5,000 barrels per day. Given these new estimates, approximately 30 million gallons of oil spilled thus far, becoming the worst spill in America's history.

The veteran actor Dennis Hopper died on May 29th:
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/05/dennis.html


June

On June 16 my lovely case manager, Erin visited the Veteran's Administration's Los Angeles Downtown Clinic... and joined the army:
http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/06/sparrow-talk-erin-joins-army.html

June 21st saw the Supreme Court uphold a ban on Giving Aid to Terror Groups. In a 6–3 decision on a free speech vs national security case, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that made it illegal to give "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, no matter how the aid was meant to be used. Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito supported the majority decision, claiming that any support, even if intended for peace-keeping operations, "bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization." The decision is considered by dissenting groups to be an affront to the protections accorded in the First Amendment, namely the right to freedom of speech. For instance peaceful advice, or just communicating with organizations deemed "terrorist," by the United States government, would be violations of law, and therefore liable for punishment. Many domestic anti war groups have recently been raided by the FBI with the authority this decision provides.

On July 15th Congress passed a landmark Financial Regulation Bill. The bill overhauls the regulation of large financial institutions, credit cards, exotic credit default swaps and derivatives, provides stronger oversight and a brand new consumer protection agency. Many have stated the bill is the strongest measure of reform taken since the Great Depression. Others consider it did not go far enough, pointing out it orders 68 "studies," leaves major decisions up to regulators prone to lobbying and industry influence, includes loopholes, including exemptions for auto dealers who make car loans, etc. The Republicans of course say it is just more big government trying to control business.

That very day British Petroleum finally capped the leaking oil well caused by the explosion of the Deepwater rig after 86 days of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, releasing approximately 205.8 million gallons.


That's it for July, and this is getting pretty long with over 2000 words, so I'll break it up into two parts for your reading convenience, dear readers.

But let me leave you with one of my favorite 2010 segments from the lovely Rachel Maddow, taken from The Rachel Maddow Show:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/29/5731061-how-to-make-a-highlight-saber?email=html

The Day Democracy Died

There are some great things to report today. The film "Creation," (see, the earlier post Creation) debuts in this country this evening. Finally. I had the privilege of watching it the other night and it is a wonderful human drama, a bit sad of course, as could be expected when examining the death of a young daughter.
And I've been reacquainted with my long time friend, Michelle, who I traded Emails back and forth with last night, catching up, and remembering old times in that residence back in Pasadena. If this continues I may have to breakdown and buy an Iphone, and start texting all of the time like my lovely case manager, Erin.
But this post is not about today. It's about the 21st of January. No, I'm not talking about the birthday of Academy Award winners Paul Scofield and Geena Davis. Nor am I celebrating the anniversaries of the launch of the first nuclear powered submarine, the USS Nautilus in 1954, or gloating over the fact that Newt Gingrich became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives to be internally disciplined for ethical misconduct in 1997. No, I'm talking yesterday the 21st of January, 2010, the day this country changed from a democracy into a corporatocracy, or as Michelle would have it, a corpocracy, "because it sounds prettier."
Wikipedia tells us this about a representative democracy, that which the founding fathers provided us in the constitution: "There are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power, and freedom is secured by legitimized rights and liberties, which are generally protected by a constitution. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself."
Yesterday in 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy gave corporations the same powers of those of human beings, in so far as equating "free speech" to funneling the unlimited millions of dollars in their general funds toward influencing elections within this country.
What does that mean?
Yesterday our usual Thursday Cooking Club was canceled due to Paul and Erin being involved in a Bike Clinic that Paul had arranged from noon until 4 o'clock. Paul had gotten a gentleman from some bike shop to volunteer his time and expertise to fix the various bicycles the residents of the hotels may have that needed repairs. I walked over through the pouring rain to the Defiance Space to take a look at the proceedings, although I do not own a bike. I got there a little after noon, when very few people had arrived as of yet, just Paul, Robert, and one other gentleman I did not know. Snacks were provided. Cokes, bottles of water, donuts, and chips. Erin soon arrived and ate her lunch of Ramen noodle soup (she likes to keep the noodles long, like spaghetti) and a nice donut. Others trickled in. The bike guy showed up with all kinds of bike repair paraphernalia, and soon the place was abuzz with bike repairing activity. Except for Erin. She sat by herself, reading from some book on recognizing personality types, and texting on her Iphone, looking rather despondent (I've noticed that young, pretty girls feel lost whenever they find themselves not the center of attention, especially in a room full of men). I observed the various repair activities for awhile, asked questions about repair techniques, even helped Robert get his bike all oiled up ("Watch where you spill that stuff, Bob. This is where we do yoga"). When I got tired of watching and decided to go home I walked over to Erin to get my umbrella.
"You know Erin today is an historic day in our nation's history," I told her.
"Oh why? What happened?" she asked.
"The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as human beings."
She looked puzzled, frowning a little, before asking, "What does that mean?"
"It means we're screwed," I told her.
We both smiled, and I told her I would see her tomorrow and returned to my box during a lull in the downpour.
In the case of Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, which primarily dealt with corporate funds being used to produce and exhibit a anti-Hillery Clinton propaganda film during her bid for the White House, the 5 activist judges (conservatives love to bitch and moan, decrying "judicial activism" any and every time a decision is made that does not support their interests. Yesterdays decision is a true example of judicial activism) that authored the majority decision in this case, irresponsibly, and overwhelmingly overstepped their bounds to inject more corporate power within our political processes.
Time and time again, whenever the subject presented itself on this blog, I've maintained that the foremost problem this country faces is a dysfunctional political process, fostered by the federal governments dependence, and desire for the infusion of mass sums of money by special interests, and that the only possible solution to this problem, achievable through election reform is by way of publicly funded campaigns. Get corporate and special interest cash, the legal form of blatant bribery that now exists, out of the system. That is the only way our government can work to solve the myriad amount of problems this nation faces. The apparent failure of health care reform being a prime example of the current dysfuncionality our government now enjoys. But no one was talking about campaign finance reform. No one except maybe Thom Hartmann, and myself, and no one listens to me... not even my invisible cat Herkermer.
After yesterday's Supreme Court decision, they sure are talking about it now. And the trickle of cash that corporations could throw into the process yesterday, is nothing to what can happen today.
Today the flood gates have opened and our country may drown.

To be continued.

The Day Democracy Died 2

During the 2008 Presidential election Senator Obama received approximately 452,852,990 contributions, 26% of those in the amount of $200.00 or less, in total, over a period of time.
Okay, let's imagine that you donated $200.00 to the Obama campaign because you bought into his crap about real change coming to America. That's not the way things are currently shaking out, but that's for another discussion at another time. Now I don't know about you dear readers, but that $200.00 would have been hard fought for and a significant amount of money even when donated over a period of months.
Let's say members of your extended family bought into his crap as well and made similar contributions, and this continues to up to 100,000 like minded individuals. That adds up to, let's see, place the aught over the 6, times 4.8= $20,000,000.00 by my count. $20,000,000 donated by 100,000 individuals expressing the political views of a significant percentage of the voting population that can afford to make their preferences known in this manner.
Historically the Republican party allies itself with the interests of big business, special interests, and is anti-union. In turn big business and powerful special interests align themselves with the Republican party, and unions with the Democratic party.
During the last Presidential election Obama ran as a democrat running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, vowing to combat climate change, and more regulatory functions in the federal government as far as runaway banking and investment interests were concerned, lack of which has caused the current economic downturn we are now experiencing. Now banking and investment interests don't want any regulations because that may hamper their raping of the American economy and threaten the billions in bonuses they pay themselves. So what do they do to protect themselves?
Good question, dear readers (I have the smartest readers, I swear). Until the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations the same privileges as human beings under the first amendment of the United States Constitution, permitting them to dump as much cash (free speech according to the court) as they wanted to into the political election process, they were reduced to informal bribery via lobbyists and proportionately small cash infusions.
But now, under the courts new ruling (which by the way reverses over 100 years of legal precedent, ignores the concept of stare decisis (recognizing past legal precedent as established law), something both justice elect Roberts and Alito swore to uphold (which highlights the farce of the confirmation process, where a candidate can say as little as possible, or outright lie to get confirmed to a lifetime position, then turn around a do whatever they freaking want to after they get the job. What a sad joke!), and was totally out of the scope of the case that was presented to the court, talk about your activist judges), lets say a company like Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan Chase, forgetting for the moment the bail out money they received from the American taxpayer, they can simply negate all of those 100,000 contributions mentioned above with a single contribution to the Republican party's candidate, in this case John McCain, of $20,000,000.00. One voice drowning out those of 100,000 with a single check that companies like Sachs and Morgan can write without batting an eye.
Multiply that by the entire amount of contributions received by the Obama campaign, and what you have is corporations running the election process in this country, promoting their own interests above those of the American people. Do you think General Motors and Exxon want significant climate change legislation passed that will no doubt hurt their bottom line? You bet your bippy they don't and will willingly pay to back those candidates that only support their agenda, and with a company like Exxon, with profits of over 45 billion last year, they can easily subvert an election like that held in 2008, which cost only 1 billion.
Imagine you're a sitting US Senator, or Congressman facing re-election (as members of the House do every two years), and a lobbyist for Exxon (Am I picking on Exxon too much? Poor little Exxon) threatens to dump as much money as it takes into the opponents campaign unless they promote Exxon's interests above those of the general public. What happens?
What do you think will happen? Exxon pays to stifle climate change legislation and policy, and the air we breathe, our children's environment, goes straight into the toilet.
As if this situation wasn't bad enough, the decision allows U.S subsidies of foreign corporations, let's say Sony, the Japanese conglomerate, the same privileges as any homegrown American corporation. As one Democratic Senator so succinctly put it recently, "A corporation is a corporation, is a corporation." The Supreme Court of the United States has opened the door for foreign entities to influence to any degree they like our electoral and political processes, which in itself is a significant matter threatening our national security. The court has subverted the nation's security in favor of the interests of corporations. This is tantamount to treason as far as I'm concerned. A simple analogy being opening the back door of the fort to let the Indians in.
Why? In the above example I chose the friendly electronics company Sony. But what if a shell company backed by Iran, or North Korea, or Al Qaeda pools their resources, well they will never have to face the strongest military in the history of the world. They can just kill us from within, because of our own stupidity (if we let this decision stand), with huge amounts of cash infusion into the very core of our political processes.
Last night in President Obama's first State of the Union address to the nation and both houses of Congress, with the justices of the Supreme Court sitting right in front of him, in an unprecedented action he called them out on it. Stating the same argument I've made above, that the court has opened the doors for foreign interests to influence the election process.
Justice Samuel Alito was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words, "That's not true." Well, denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Yes it is true Mr. Alito. And because of your tremendously irresponsible action all of us have to scramble to correct your mistake as fast as possible before irreparable harm is done to this nation and its real people.
What can we do? As individual citizens we can do little, so we need to work together. Not many people like the decision the Court handed down. Even many Republicans and CEO's of major corporations. What we must do is what Howard Beale suggested in the film "Network," which is to let your Congressional representatives know, "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore." Let them know how you feel through telephone calls, visits to their offices, Email's, community activism and demonstrations. Let the media know that this is a major issue facing this country worthy of more than the two minutes devoted to it on the 21st, compared to 30 minutes to John Edwards love child. March in the streets! Urge Congress to act, either by passing a constitutional amendment countering the court's decision, or by passing the Fair Elections Now Act. Support Rep. Grayson's 6 bills that deal specifically with this issue. Our imagination is the only limit to what we can do. As Thom Hartmann told me, "Raise hell, and get active." The ball is in our court.
On January 21st of this year democracy died in this country. It's all of our jobs to breathe (thank you Michelle) life back into it.

Everybody's On Acid! 2

As we've discussed previously (see, The Day Democracy Died 1 & 2, from January), the Supreme Court has elevated campaign contributions by anonymous business interests to the level of free speech in it's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. And I mean anonymous, we won't even be able to tell if those giving unlimited amounts of money to selected candidates are from within the country, which means foreign interests have the means to influence our elections in ways heretofore unheard of (why would Iran need a nuclear weapon if it could simply pave the way for their own candidate, sympathetic above all else to their cause, with all of that oil money at their disposal).
"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," President Obama said in a statement on the day the decision was handed down.
I've stated before that the major problem this country faces, above all others, is money in the political process, whether it's the federal government, state, or local. As long as elections are not publicly financed, and professional lobbyists are allowed to run rampant through the halls of Congress, government will remain dysfunctional, corrupt, and grid locked, unable to do the work of the people because it's too concerned with doing the business of it's corporate masters who own it through campaign contributions which are nothing but a form of bribery. This goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. The Supreme Court's decision opens the flood gates allowing an infinite amount of money into the process, exactly the opposite of what is needed for the government to actually work.
The Republicans are the corporate party, so they like the Citizens United verdict just fine, figuring that their corporate masters will pour more money into the campaigns of Republican candidates than those of their opponents. And I bet they will.
The Disclose Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act), introduced in the House by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) would do a whole bunch of things to help mitigate the disastrous consequences of the Supreme Court's decision by making CEO's of corporations responsible for the ads they produce, prevent those foreign interests from determining the outcome of our elections, allow shareholders of corporations to know where their money is being spent, prevent tax payer money from being spent on election campaigns by government contractors, and keep corporations from "sponsoring" political candidates (can you imagine, dear readers, Senator John McCain during the last Presidential election with a sign promoting "Viagra" strapped to his back? I can), among other things, all in the name of making elections more transparent, fair and equitable (not to mention shoring up the national security aspect by blocking foreign entities from influencing our elections).
The President said as much himself in his weekly radio address: "What's at stake is not just an election, it's our democracy itself."
But making elections transparent, fair and equitable is not what the Republicans are about, at least when they think they have the advantage, so they keep filibustering the bill, not even allowing it to come to the Senate floor for an up and down vote, something they claim they like to do all of time (when it's to their advantage). Mr. Turtle Head...I'm so sorry. I'm very immature and shouldn't be calling opposition members silly names just because they physically resemble amphibious reptiles... the honorable Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that the president is trying to fix the November election by promoting the Disclose Act, and in doing so admitting that Citizens United will unduly benefit the Republicans, or so they hope. Mitch and his buddies claim the Democrats are only advancing the Disclose Act to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. Well, duh! Yeah they're trying to maintain their majorities by keeping the election transparent, fair and equitable. But as I've said earlier, the Republicans aren't in to that.
What does all of this election business and campaign finance reform have to do with lysergic acid diethylamide? Just take a look at Turtle Head's... I mean McConnell's eyes... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin... well, you just know he's gotta be tripping.



And all of those freaks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce too!

Other notable drug related items in the news:
Those happy go lucky folks on the Texas School Board of Education are at it again. They're tired of all of the Muslim infiltration of our children's textbooks, making them appear all nice and all, nicer than Christians. Seriously. They contend that "Middle Easterners," are buying into the nation's textbook businesses hoping to turn our kids into little Osama's, and have issued a resolution for them to stop doing it. These are the same sick idiots who recently voted to amend the books used in their classrooms to a decidedly right wing bent, such as pulling Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone (because he coined the term "separation between church and state," which the conservative majority of the board does not believe exists). They also wish to add the same old stuff right wingers are always promoting, Darwin's theory of evolution is questionable, and the countries founders were guided by Christian principles... like the ownership of slaves.
Clearly these guys and gals have been passing around the Orange Sunshine.
The GOP in Montana of all places, want to make homosexuality illegal. "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal." So if your born gay in Montana, through no fault of your own, I don't know, you'd have to go to jail I guess. They should enforce the laws prohibiting glue sniffing and slugging down hits of windowpane instead.
Someone in the Obama Administration thinks it's a good idea to sell Saudi Arabia about 60 billion dollars worth of weapons and military hardware. Obviously on acid. That's just what this world needs... more weapons in the Middle East. Well that will certainly show those Iranians for standing up for themselves by refusing to stop enriching uranium because the Republican neo-cons are making it a wedge issue of it in the states, won't it?
As Colin (Colin) Powell said just Sunday morning on "Meet the Press," and I paraphrase, "Iran wants to survive. They know what would happen to them if they were to use a nuclear weapon in the area." I agree, it's unlikely Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it had one. So let's sober up all you Bill Kristols and John McCains out there, and put down the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

To be continued:

Is Our Congress Corrupt? 2

David Stockman


Bill Moyers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

The conclusion that I so extensively expressed in the first part of this post may shock the majority of Americans. However it is my contention, my belief, that the majority of our citizens do not monitor the actions of their federal Senators and Representatives closely, and are therefore largely ignorant of the practices of those who serve in Congress. An ignorance unscrupulous members of Congress take full advantage of.
Why should most Americans monitor their own members of Congress, let alone Congress as a whole except in extraordinary circumstances that affect them directly. Americans are busy! They have lots of things to do. They have jobs... maybe. If they don't have jobs then they're looking for them. They have children to raise and worry about. They have pressing financial concerns. They may be on the brink of losing their homes. Every month after month they have mortgage payments, car payments, groceries, gas expenditures, children's school supplies and clothing, electricity, insurance payments that need to be made. Medical costs. Grandma just moved in. Their sister and deadbeat brother-in-law want to. The people on television, radio, and the Internet machine forget that our country is trying to crawl it's way out of a recession and constantly, constantly want us to buy things... all the time! They never stop! Even my dear friends on the morning radio, Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann daily urge me to buy some gold. Gold! What the hell am I going to do with some gold after I get it, but they tell me I would be stupid not to get it. Every day they tell me this.
To be quite honest with you I don't think Stephanie has any gold at all unless her sponsors gave it to her.
It's very expensive, even a little bit of it.
The last thing in world I need to buy right now is some gold. I need new shoes more than I need to buy gold.
These situations may cause a lot of people some amount of anxiety and/or depression. I know it does for myself. To counter these emotions many self medicate with drugs and/or alcohol, some to excess. There is always the TV to help us forget about our pressing problems, at least for a little while. Even if people are of the lucky upper middle class, if that still exists, who don't suffer from any of the ills I've described above, who wouldn't want to watch "Dancing With the Stars," or "American Idol," or "The Wendy Williams Show," or soap operas, or a good zombie program like the "Walking Dead," rather than CSPAN? I certainly wouldn't. I never watch CSPAN. And then there is the mind numbing films that are offered to us week after week. Let's see what opened yesterday for instance: "Ghost Rider, Spirit of Vengeance." An uplifting, intellectually challenging film if I ever heard of one. A Japanese cartoon, or should I say "animated" film, "The Secret World of Arrietty," that has already made over $126 million overseas (I guess kids like this one), "This Means War," a comedy spy film, on and on. There is one documentary, "Undefeated," about a high school football team. But sports seem to be just another avenue used to avoid reality for a little while, except for those actually playing.
I understand...really. I've spent a good portion of my life actively trying to avoid reality at any cost.
But it's usually been to my detriment.
My point is that we are all constantly bombarded with commercials and ads that want to separate us from what little money we do have, and that we are constantly trying to be put to sleep, hypnotized, and manipulated by the media.
Most so-called news programs don't report the news anymore. They're entertainment shows pretending to report news in search of high ratings.
So with all of this going on how, or why should we know or care about what is going on in Washington D.C.?
Because what happens in Washington D.C. affects each and every one of us, our children, and their children.
Well, we tell ourselves, I voted for this guy so I trust him/her to do the right thing and look out for me.
But how do you know they are?
Fox News tells me they are.
Ahhhh, but Fox News is the propaganda network for the Republican party, and the Republican Party is only looking out for people and companies that have a lot of money.
That's not true... Fox News tells me so.
Ahhhh, but Fox News... and politicians lie.
But don't worry America. There's Joyce's Take, Bill Moyers, "The Daily Show," and "60 Minutes," around to shed some light on what's really happening to our federal government.
As I've stated before, the United States of America is not now a democracy, if it ever was.
Wikipedia tells us: "Democracy is the ideal that all the citizens of a nation determine together the laws or actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their consent and their will. In practice, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy," and who ever wrote this misspelled the word "practice," which I've graciously corrected.
Our country is not even a republic, which Republicans like to claim all of the time because that is the name of their party.
Again, Wikipedia tells us: "A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people."
There are of course other sources for the definitions of these forms of government, but I hope we can all agree that Wikipedia has gotten this basically right.
Okay, here's the definition of what the country really is right now, and has been at various times in the past: "Corporatocracy is an imprecise pejorative term describing a situation in which corporate bodies interact with sovereign power in an unhealthy alignment between business and political power.
It describes an elite, sometimes termed the "1 percent", which maintains ties between business and government, sometimes by lobbying efforts or funding political advertising campaigns, or providing bailouts when corporations are seen as too big to fail, for the purpose of controlling government and dictating policy to serve its financial interests." Again, I've used Wikipedia as the source.
Don't believe me? Well I'm not the only one who thinks so. There are a lot of others.
David Stockman served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985), under President Reagan. He resigned that office amid some controversy as he was very critical of the Reagan administration's fiscal policies. He then became an investment banker on Wall Street. Of course.
Here he is interviewed on Bill Moyers new PBS program "Moyers and Company," in which he describes how the United States, or at least the banking sector on Wall Street, does not do business in a capitalist manner that Republicans typically defend so stridently, but rather works and thrives under what Stockman calls, "Crony Capitalism," a system in which giant financial interests can't lose, no matter what they do. This is a long segment, but well worth watching.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/david-stockman-on-crony-capitalism/
It is nothing but chilling as Moyers asks Stockman if there is anything we can do to change this situation before we reach another, greater financial crisis.
"No," was his reply.
Again, as I've postulated before on numerous occasions, and in which Mr. Stockman seems to agree, our greatest problem is private money in politics through what is essentially legal bribery through campaign contributions, and intense and constant lobbying by professional lobbyists.
And now the Supreme Court, although not concerned with its own reelection, seems to be ruled by sharp ideology, and in that case the majorities idealogy rules the day. My proof, Citizens United ( http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2010/01/day-democracy-died.html ), in which corporations, unions, and foreign entities can practically infuse as much cash into our election process as they wish to, thereby exacerbating the fundamental problem our nation faces.
Mr. Stockman, myself, and probably millions of other Americans agree, the only way we can change the current, corrupt system infesting all three branches of our government, is to get corporate money out of it. And since Citizens United is currently the law of the land, a Constitutional Amendment reversing Citizens is what is needed to be initiated and installed.
This post is approaching 1500 words, and it is getting late, so I have to stop now before the monsters come out.
Next we will finally examine the blatant corruption within the legislative branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America.


To be continued.

Guns, and Who the Republicans Really Work For

Shame On You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhHvpNHHP14

Obama Speaks On Gun Control After Vote Fails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQGoyQ-TXwo

   Last January, at the beginning of the present term of Congress the Senate majority led by Harry Reid of Nevada had the opportunity to change the rules regarding what is known as the filibuster, a procedure not mentioned in the Constitution which allowed a single member, or a small group of senators to put a hold on upcoming measures and presidential nominees indefinitely, a procedure the Republican minority had used on a record number of occasions during the last term to block important legislation that the President or the Majority had proposed, which effectively left the legislative body impotent, unable to pass anything at all in most cases (the passage of  Obamacare in 2009 being a rare exception).

   They also had the opportunity to change how many votes it was required to pass legislation... from the present 60 supermajority vote, to a simple majority, requiring just 51. Considering the Democrats had gained seats in the November election, for a total of 55, to the Republicans 45, chances of advancing the democratic and Presidential agenda would have been assured.  

   Did Reid and the Democrats take that opportunity?  Of course not! That would have taken a measure of courage, and, I cynically say, any legislation passed would have to be owned by the democrats, legislation with their name on it, that they would be responsible for. That's way to scary for elected officials who above all wish to be reelected, and who were much more comfortable doing nothing at all, which is relatively safe, leaving open the option of blaming the other party for obstructing all their hard fought for efforts.  

   Oh, they changed the rules a little bit, making it a little bit harder for a single senator, or small group to filibuster, but they left the supermajority rules in place, thereby giving the Senate minority undo, and unearned (democrats won the election after all, something Senator Reid must have forgotten) power over the majority.

   To be fair if all that was required were a majority vote to pass legislation the minority party, in this case the Republicans, would have the opportunity to attach amendments to bills that countered the larger purpose of the original legislation. Huuh? Yeah, I know, it's complicated. It doesn't need to be, but it is. Take the gun control background check legislation for gun purchases at gun shows and online that was defeated Wednesday in a 54 to 46 vote (Harry Reid supported the measure, but voted against it in order to preserve the right to bring it back up at a later time). If only a majority were needed to pass an amendment, a host of measures opposed by gun control advocates would have garnered enough support to pass, such as the right to carry a concealed weapon, which urban lawmakers stridently oppose and which could have doomed the entire gun control bill. The concealed carry measure scored 57 yes votes. Why did it score 57 yes votes of which 12 must have been democratic? Probably it was an effort to appease republicans and get some needed republican votes in order to pass the larger background check bill.

   Another problem peculiar to the Senate is in the way some states with low populations garner as much representation as those with larger populations, a situation that our founding fathers should have forseen considering the differences in population within the 13 colonies (for instance Tennessee had an estimated population of just 10,000 in 1780, compared to 538,000 in Virginia).    

   Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution stipulates  "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

   Jonathan Cohen and Eric Kingsbury of New Republic:

   “If you assume, for sake of argument, each senator represents half of his or her state’s population, then senators voting for the bill represented about 194 million people, while the senators voting against the bill represented about 118 million people. That’s getting close to a two-thirds majority in favor of the measure.”

   Ian Millhiser and Adam Peck of ThinkProgress continue:

   "To put this in perspective, Wyoming Sens. Mike Enzi (R) and John Barrasso (R) both voted against the gun safety provision. Together, they represent a little more than half a million people. California Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D) and Barbara Boxer (D) both voted for gun safety. They represent over 38 million Americans. In other words, a voter in Wyoming enjoys 66 times as much representation in the Senate as a voter in California.

   As the least populous state, Wyoming makes out like bandits when it comes to Senate representation, but they are far from alone in enjoying such a windfall. A voter in Idaho (population 1,595,728) counts as almost 24 Californians. A voter in Nebraska (population 1,845,525) counts as nearly 21 Californians. And a voter in North Dakota (population 699,628) counts as more than 54 Californians. Indeed, if you add up the combined populations of Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama, that still adds up to over 3 million fewer people than live in the state of California. That also adds up to 26 senators, all of whom opposed background checks [see the graphic above]."

   That's how a bill in the United States Senate which enjoys the support of 90% of the American population, including 8 out of 10 gun owners, is procedurally defeated.

   But why did those 46 senators, including 4 democrats, vote no?

   Money, and the power associated with it.

   The NRA (National Rifle Association) had lobbied aggressively against the proposal. Among other efforts, they spent $500,00 in one day, the day the Senate voted on the bill -- on ads calling the proposal "Obama's gun ban," according to the New York Times. They and their minions, which includes the bought and paid for senators, spread outright lies about the bill, such as that it established a national registry of gun owners, which the bill expressly forbade. The lies were so egregious that democrats overcame their typical polictical correctness, and called them for what they were, outright lies, including the president.

   Good for them.

   If 8 out of 10 gun owners supported the bill, gun owners that supposedly were represented by the NRA, why did the NRA oppose it?

   Good question? I'm glad you asked.

   It's because the NRA is actually a trade organization that represents gun manufacturers, not the actual members. (Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable.") That's one reason the answer to every problem the NRA faces in the light of continuing tragedies like Sandy Hook is more guns.

   More guns, more guns, more guns.

   This gun mania is further fueled by the right-wing media which is forever pro business over individual rights (such as the right to stay alive in the face of gun violence), 2nd Amendment maniacs who hoard guns in compensation for their diminutive reproductive organs, and politicians who receive campaign donations (legalized bribery) from the NRA, or who face threats of election retribution by the NRA if said politicians oppose NRA backed legislation. Such is the power of gun manufacturers over the United State's elected officials, officials who were elected to represent their constituents rather than business interests.

   But why should that surprise anyone? Wall Street interests, defense contractors and manufacturers, the banking industry, and a host of other entities all enjoy the same unduly influence over our government, including the White House.

   Those senators who voted no offered excuses like these:

   “It’s dangerous to do any type of policy in an emotional moment,” said Senator Mark Begichof of Alaska, a Democrat up for re-election next year. “Because human emotions then drive the decision. Everyone’s all worked up. That’s not enough.”

   Or:

   Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claimed the bill would lead to the creation of a national database of gun owners. Senators Manchin and Toomey, who introduced the bill, have repeatedly pointed out that their legislation explicitly barred a federal registry and would impose a harsh penalty on any official who tried to create one.

   "In my opinion, adopting mandatory federal government background checks for purely private transactions between law-abiding citizens, puts us inexorably on the path to a push for a federal registry," he said.

   The old "slippery slope" routine. As we've learned from our Baloney Detection Kit ( http://joycestake.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-baloney-detection-kit-dr-shermers.html )  tenet # 17:

   "Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle* - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). "If we allow same sex marriage to become the law of the land, then what's to stop marriage between men and goats?"

   For my own part I have nothing against interspecies marriage. To each his own.

   Here's another: "If we legalize marijuana, then everybody will become heroin addicts."

   Of course it remains my contention that the majority of Republicans in Congress suffer from sociopathology. What's that? Here's one diffinition:

   Noun - Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. -Antisocial personality disorder Wikipedia

   The action of these 46 no voting senators do nothing to dispel my contention.

   What is in full display here is a corrupt, unresponsive Senate. If the bill had passed and sent to the House of Representatives most likely it would have been killed there, or watered down to the point that it might as well hadn't been passed. Why? Because Republicans control the House. It's as simple as that.

   Republicans have no excuses to fall back on regarding this. They can't blame the Democrats for inaction, or the President to lead... it's all on them.

    It's a shame isn't it? And I'm not the only one to thinks so. My girlfriend thinks it's a shame as well. So do these people:

Mayor Bloomberg, co-chair, Mayors Against Illegal Guns: “Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby. Democrats – who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws – could not stand united. And Republicans – who are so quick to blame Democrats for not being tough enough on crime – handed criminals a huge victory, by preserving their ability to buy guns illegally at gun shows and online and keeping the illegal trafficking market well-fed. Senators Manchin and Toomey – as well as Majority Leader Reid and Senators Schumer, Kirk, Collins, McCain and others – deserve real credit for coming together around a compromise bill that struck a fair balance, and President Obama and Vice-President Biden deserve credit for their leadership since the Sandy Hook massacre. But even with some bi-partisan support, a common-sense public safety reform died in the U.S. Senate at the hands of those who are more interested in attempting to protect their own political careers – or some false sense of ideological purity – than protecting the lives of innocent Americans. The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t forget.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: “Today’s vote in the Senate is disappointing to the American people and devastating to the families, friends, and loved ones of victims of gun violence across our country. A minority of Senators failed to summon the courage to do what’s right on behalf of the safety and security of our children and families.  Their shameful votes prevented commonsense steps to expand background checks and keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands.  Their indefensible actions broke our promise to every community struck by gun violence. In the words of the Sandy Hook promise, ‘Our hearts are broken, our spirit is not.’  With perseverance and determination, we hope the Senate brings strong legislation back up for consideration and acts to protect our schools, homes, and neighborhoods.  That is the least we can do to honor the memory of the children of Newtown, the people of Tucson, and all of the Americans lost to the scourge of gun violence.”

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten: “Make no mistake — the NRA and the gun manufacturers won out today over the life, liberty and happiness of our children, families and communities. A government by the people and for the people must serve the American people and not the gun lobby. The tragic question facing us now is how many gun deaths will it take before Congress lives up to its basic responsibility to protect and serve the American people? Twenty-six children and teachers gunned down in Newtown, Conn. Thirty-two students and faculty killed at Virginia Tech. U.S. Rep. Gabby Gifford shot outside a supermarket. Thirteen students and educators brutally murdered at Columbine High School. Twelve people gunned down in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. Nearly 3,500 Americans killed by guns since Dec. 14—more than 50 of them children. The time for action is now. We applaud Sens. Manchin, Toomey, Feinstein, Blumenthal, Schumer, Kirk and Lautenberg for their leadership, as well as the other senators who voted for commonsense gun safety legislation today. AFT members admire their courage for standing up and doing what is right for our children and families.”

And lastly an op-ed by former Representative Gabby Giffords of Arizona, a victim of gun violence:

A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

People have told me that I’m courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.

I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.

They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing.

They will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done — trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you — but their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and their families, who have begged for action, not because it would bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.

This defeat is only the latest chapter of what I’ve always known would be a long, hard haul. Our democracy’s history is littered with names we neither remember nor celebrate — people who stood in the way of progress while protecting the powerful. On Wednesday, a number of senators voted to join that list.

Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.

Stephen Colbert on Gun Control Block

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425606/april-18-2013/gun-control-block

Obama Taking Action On Background Checks After Senate Rejects Measure

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/obama-background-checks_n_3115236.html?utm_hp_ref=politics">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/obama-background-checks_n_3115236.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Senate members approval ratings drop after No vote
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/gun-background-checks-poll_n_3177865.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

* Tenet # 15.  Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (or a false dichotomy). "If you don't love this country, you hate it." "Your either for us or against us," which George B. Bush used to his advantage to further his plans to attack Iraq. Of course the argument makes no sense since there are a wide range of other possibilities, such as "I am not necessarily against you, but there are other ways to handle this problem other than the one you propose."

 

Oklahoma Revisited

Wolverine Sings

   Although I generally dislike musicals of any kind, but especially films (except those of Bob Fosse, who actually worked the music and dancing into his films in a realistic manner (except for the first song in “Sweet Charity,” I guess, but the adorableness of Shirley McClain as Charity Hope Valentine makes up for it), where the actors don’t just break out into song and choreographed dance numbers every time the mood strikes them, which rarely happens in real life (except here in Skid Row)), I do like the song “Oklahoma,” composed by Richard  Rodgers and lyrics provided by Oscar Hammerstein, the title song from, and the finale to, their first Broadway musical collaboration, which also happened to be titled, “Oklahoma!”

   The song has some zip to it (which is a form of energy... like dark matter), is memorable, meaning it will stick in your head if you let it, displays authentic examples of frontier gibberish, and is peppy. 

   I dearly wish California had such a song. All we’ve got is “California Dreaming,” by the Mamas and the Papas, which is nice but melancholy, and “California Girls,” from the Beach Boys, which is nice but objectifying (the same goes for Katy Perry’s “California Gurls." Ha, ha, poor Katy don’t even know how to spell).   

   We’ve also got "All of California and Everyone Who Lives There Stinks," by the The World/Inferno Friendship Society, “California,” by that French girl, Mylène Farmer, which isn’t even in English (she could be saying anything about us and we wouldn’t know), “California Here I Come,” by my favorite American contemporary singer/songwriter, Sophie B Hawkins, and “California, Here I Come,” by Al Jolson.

   There’s “Californication,” by the Red Hot Chile Peppers, which is kind of nice, but has no anthem quality to it, and who wants a state song sung by four guys who can’t even afford T-shirts? I certainly don’t.

   We have “Fuck You, I'm From California,” by Ester Drang. “Going to California,” by my favorite rock band, Zed Zeppelin, which is a great song, and I sing it all of the time, so much so that my neighbors hate me, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with California at all, being more about Joni Mitchell, who Robert Plant and Jimmy Page had a crush on, poor bastards. 

   We also have the Eagle’s "Hotel California," which the band’s members have described as their “interpretation of the high life in Los Angeles,” so it’s not really about freaking California now is it? It’s about getting strung out in L.A., which I don’t need a song to do!

   Our official state song is “I Love You, California.” The lyrics were written by Francis Bernard Silverwood in 1913, a Los Angeles clothier, and the words were subsequently put to music by Abraham Franklin Frankenstein, the conductor of the Orpheum Theatre Orchestra. 

   Frankenstein.

   Have you ever heard this song, or knew that it existed until this very moment? Neither did I. Listen to it at the above link and you’l probably figure out why. 

   “I love you, California, you're the greatest state of all.

     I love you in the winter, summer, spring and in the fall.

     I love your fertile valleys; your dear mountains I adore.

     I love your grand old ocean and I love her rugged shore.”

   Jeeez.

   The powers that be designated it the state song in 1951, and in 1987 it became the official state song by law. 

   Need I say the Governors of the state during those two years were Republicans (Earl Warren and George Deukmejian).

   Hey, at least it was played on the first ship to go through the Panama Canal in 1914, at least it’s got that going for it.

   Still, I think we sorely need an upgrade.

   We don’t even have a good gold rush song.

   Know what the official state song of Oklahoma is? It’s Rogers and Hammerstein’s “Oklahoma,” of course. They knew they had a good thing going:

   “Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain,

And the wavin' wheat can sure smell sweet

When the wind comes right behind the rain.

Oklahoma, ev'ry night my honey lamb and I

Sit alone and talk and watch a hawk makin' lazy circles in the sky.

We know we belong to the land

And the land we belong to is grand!

And when we say--Yeeow! A-yip-i-o-ee ay!

We're only sayin' You're doin' fine, Oklahoma! Oklahoma--O.K.”

      Yeeow! A-yip-i-o-ee ay!

   But I digress...

   I was going through my E-mail the other day as I often do, and came across this article on the Daily Kos, written by someone who calls themselves “Bink.” The article is entitled “More on Why Oklahoma Will Always be a Poor State,” and it starts out like this: “Oklahoma ranks at the bottom of every measure. It's dirt poor. It's people have poor rates of education. Their incomes are low. It's a bad place to live.”

   Well, how rude. Here's a rebuttal.

   A lot of people live there, 3,850,568.3 as of last July, making it the 28th most populous state of the union (California has the most people, with 38,332,521.8), so it must have something going for it besides the song.

   It’s got tornados and severe thunderstorms!  It has a nice continental climate! It has 50 state parks, six national parks or protected regions, and two national protected forests or grasslands! The state is home to populations of white-tailed deer, mule deer, antelope, coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, elk, and birds such as quail, doves, cardinals, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, and pheasants. American bison (as opposed to the Asian gaur and wild water buffalo), greater prairie chickens, badgers, and armadillo are common, and some of the nation's largest prairie dog towns inhabit shortgrass prairie in the state's panhandle! 

   Prairie dog towns.

   The name Oklahoma means “red people” in Choctaw!

   American Airlines likes it there. Tulsa is home to the largest airline maintenance base in the world, which serves as the global maintenance and engineering headquarters for the airline.

   The state is the top manufacturer of tires in North America, which is very important for cars and trucks and things,  and contains one of the fastest growing biotechnology industries in the nation, which means Oklahoma will most likely be the focal point of the upcoming GMO zombie apocalypse! 

   Oklahoma is the nation's third-largest producer of natural gas, fifth-largest producer of crude oil, has the second-greatest number of active drilling rigs, and ranks fifth in crude oil reserves. 

   While the state ranked eighth for installed wind energy capacity in 2011, it is at the bottom of states in usage of renewable energy, which we’ll get too in a minute, with 94 percent of its electricity being generated by non-renewable sources in 2009.

    Employees of Oklahoma oil-related companies earn an average of twice the state's typical yearly income so a lot of money can be made while polluting the planet’s atmosphere and contributing to global warming!

   Oklahoma City is the home to the largest private oil-related companies in the nation, like Devon Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and Sand Ridge Energy Corporation!

   Oklahoma is one of the birth places of Koch Industries, which is the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill), with an annual revenue of $115 billion, and owned by Charles and David Koch, who are each worth about $50 billion now, allowing them to buy the United States (they keep doing these anti-Obama things, like trying to get Obamacare repealed, and backing Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, even though they’re making just oodles of money with Obama in office, which is driving poor Chris Hayes of MSNBC’s “All In” (Look for "Why the Rich Never Stop Complaining") just crazy)! (“The most anti-business president in history” says Mitch McConnell about Barack Obama. Corporate leaders agree. “He’s a socialist,” they say. But corporate profits under Obama have surged to the highest share of the U.S. economy in history, and CEO pay has never been higher. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other right-wing billionaires are pouring tens of millions of dollars into Senate and House races to elect Republicans. But their fortunes have grown faster under Obama and the Democratic Senate than at any time since the 1920s. Wall Street CEOs say new regulations are stifling them but bank profits and CEO pay have soared to record levels, especially now that the banks are too big to fail. The barons of the oil and gas industry complain about “excessive” regulation but oil and gas has never done as well (including their $7 billion a year in tax subsidies).

So why are they complaining? I think it’s a smokescreen designed to hide from the rest of America the reality that more income and wealth are going to the top than ever before, and corporate welfare is out of control. What’s your explanation? -Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary for Bill Clinton)

   As of last week 48 fracking related earthquakes larger than the magnitude of 2.5 have struck in Oklahoma. In the past month, there have been 157 quakes larger than magnitude 2.5!

   You can save on electrical expenses by lighting your kitchen with the flames from your tap water if you live in Oklahoma!

   They have cable!

   Yet despite all of this, Bink persists.

   “There is no real reason that Oklahoma should not compete with neighboring states for jobs, security and standard of living.

   Except that the political system there is determined to keep its people down.

   Oklahoma is just one of those places ...

   It doesn't provide for its residents.

   It doesn't invest in an infrastructure for jobs.

   It doesn't help its people get training for the jobs of the future.

   It doesn't ... do anything.

   It's a place where government thinks its duty is to punish people, rather than cultivate prosperity. And that is why it will always, always be poor.”

   Wow! This Bink certainly has it out for Oklahoma, or at least it’s government officials. 

   We’ve visited Oklahoma once before, hence the title of this post. Let me see... oh yes, here it is. 

   As stated I once drove through Oklahoma while escaping from Texas and into Kansas. I’ve seen the majestic Oklahoma City skyline. We spent exactly as much time as it takes to drive through the state south to north (230 miles). I don’t think we even stopped for gas.

   And while in the navy I knew a very nice man who came from Oklahoma. Not surprisingly he was a Gunner’s Mate 3rd Class, but nice as hell. He even invited me into his home one evening for dinner with his lovely wife.

   Very nice man. 

   During those two times I witnessed no malfeasance on the part of Oklahoman government officials. 

   However, as we indicated in the first post, some Oklahoman officials are trying to sneak creationism into their public school system, and further, usurp the entire public school system of the nation, and others are trying to make it very difficult for the ladies of the state to either aquire safe birth control products, or receive abortion services. It seems that for these officials the role of Oklahoman women is to stay pregnant as often and as long as possible. That’s their only viable role in the world, these people believe.  Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, a politically active constituent said.

   "Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother," Pedulla said. "They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn't bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies."

   By extension, part of a man’s identity, I suppose, is to be a father, so it must be okay for said men to go around and screw as many women as possible, thus maximizing there reproductive chances of fatherhood, which is their divine destiny.

   It’s also rather self serving and reminiscent of some attitudes toward the roles of the sexes found in the Muslim world.

   Be that as it may... maybe since the publication of “Oklahoma and the Crusades,” back in February of last year things have changed for the better, for the better for the people who live and work there that is. Let’s take a look at some recent news reports to find out, shall we?

   First of all, the Governor of the Sooner State is one Mary Fallin, a Republican. She’s also the current Chairperson of the National Governors Association, which is kind of a big deal if you’re a governor.

   Doesn’t she have a nice smile in that picture above.

   The Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma is also a Republican. 

   Both Houses of the State Legislature are controlled by Republicans.

   Both Senators, James Mountain Inhofe and Thomas Coburn are both Republican... 

   What could possibly go wrong?

   The two Senators have nice smiles too (I guess Coburn’s trying real hard to turn a snarl into a smile up there). 

   Okay, let’s see... oh yes, it seems Governor Fallin’s been in the news recently for signing into law a bill that bars all of the states various cities from setting mandatory minimum wage, vacation or sick-day requirements.

    Huummm.

   Well, that doesn’t sound too bad. If I’m an employer, let’s say in Tulsa, and I want to set the wage of my new hourly employees at $7.50 a hour, which is 25 cents above the state’s and federal minimum wage, I could now go to jail.

   That’s not too invasive, is it? I mean this is right in line with the Republican philosophy of small government and a free market. 

   Not to mention it’s a pretty crappy deal for the state’s workers.

   Who, it must be said, voted these... people into office. 

   So logic dictates that the people of Oklahoma are perfectly content to be stuck into low paying, poverty scale wages. Their votes say so.

   The Governor rationalizes her action by stating that raising the minimum wage is not an effective way to bring people out of poverty.

   "Most minimum-wage workers are young, single people working part-time or entry-level jobs," Fallin said. "Many are high school or college students living with their parents in middle-class families."

   Republicans say that a lot when talking about rasing the minimum wage even though there’s no truth to it at all. Let me take a minute to look on the old Internet Machine I have here... I typed this into Google “average age of workers making minimum wage.” The first thing that pops up is this: “Low-wage Workers Are Older Than You Think. 88 Percent of Workers Who Would Benefit From a Higher Minimum Wage Are Older Than 20, One Third Are Over 40.”

   Now this would seem to be in direct contradiction to what Governor Fallen purports (and yes, she didn’t bother to site any evidence to support her supposition, Republicans never do, it would hurt too much when they pull these suppositions out of their asses). 

   The second item that pops up is this from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.”

   That would mean that about half of those making the minimum wage are over 25 years of age, which is also in contradiction of what Governor Fallen claims. 

   The non partisan Economic Policy Institute states: “By highlighting the need to increase the federal minimum wage in his State of the Union address, President Obama breathed new life into a critically important issue. Wages for U.S. workers, particularly low-wage workers, have eroded not just in recent years, but over several decades. This erosion has contributed to the growth of income inequality, leaving the economy less vibrant than if incomes were distributed more evenly. Raising the minimum wage and incorporating a system for automatic adjustment over time is key to reversing this erosion of low-wage workers’ earnings, and would help combat growth of income inequality.”

   Even if this were not so, as the President said recently, and I paraphrase, “I don’t know what the Republicans have against helping young people.”

   Indeed, I believe that young people make up a significant part of the national economy. When these young people make more money do they stash it away like corporations and the ultra rich are doing now? I don’t think so. I was young at one time and don’t recall saving a large part of whatever income I made... I spent it (placing it back into the economy) as fast as I possibly could.

   So what is the net result of the Governor’s actions? She’s hurting her own constituents by insisting a large percentage work at poverty wages, she’s restricting the autonomy of the state’s employers, and she’s effectively depressing her own state’s economy.

   It seems there are some in Oklahoma who disagree with the Governor, and are taking steps to reverse some of her policies. Good. Might I suggest that voting her out of office be one of them.

   What else has this feisty lady been up to?

   Last Monday S.B. 1456 passed the Oklahoma state House 83-5 after no debate and the Governor is expected to sign it into law very soon. The measure creates a new class of energy customers: those who install their own distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their own property and sell the excess energy back to the state’s electrical grid. This  new class of customer will now be charged a monthly fee basically for getting off of fossil fuel produced energy, and onto renewable. One might say they’re being punished, and those contemplating switching to renewable, clean energy systems, now must enter this additional cost into their deliberations, thereby creating a depression effect for renewables.

   Why would the state legislature and Governor do this, you may ask? Everybody wants a clean environment, don’t they?

   The  American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) doesn’t seem to. ALEC is  a 501(c)(3) (an American tax-exempt nonprofit) organization, whose membership primarily consists of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives.  According to its web site, ALEC "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public."

   Wikipedia tells us: “The New York Times reported that special interests have "effectively turn[ed] ALEC's lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes." Bloomberg BusinessWeek stated, "Part of ALEC's mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work." The Guardian described ALEC as "a dating agency for Republican state legislators and big corporations, bringing them together to frame right wing legislative agendas in the form of 'model bills'." Several liberal groups, including Common Cause, have challenged its tax-exempt status.

   Well so what you say? What has ALEC got to do with anything?

   Everything. ALEC might as well have written S.B. 1456 themselves... as a matter of fact they effectively did, as they have done in many other states, including my own. ALEC and it’s members are wholeheartedly engaged in an ongoing attack on the advancement of renewable and sustainable energy to the detriment of our species. 

   There is good news. Although there were lots of legislative action, over 120 bills introduced across the country, the net effect seems to have been that the states chose to strengthen or modify their Renewable Portfolio Standards, not eliminate them in even one state.

   So Oklahoma couldn’t get away with eliminating renewable energy sources altogether, they’re just figuring out ways to slow it down at much as possible. 

   Anything else?

   This week the Mustang, Oklahoma school board voted to implement a Bible course developed by the president of Hobby Lobby, a Mr.Steve Green.

   WTF?

   I mean there’s a place for religious training, and it’s not in our public school system. The appropriate places are called churches, and what they used to call Sunday School. But who the hell is Steve Green to be introducing anything into a public school system? He owns a freaking chain store, so that means he gets to introduce his personal idealogy into our public schools?!

   In Oklahoma, and a nation that has recently been revealed to be oligarchy (a system of government ruled by a few wealthy individuals, and for their benefit) rather than a democracy we were all taught about in school, a democracy we fought and died for in world wars, a democracy we spilled our blood for in a civil war.  

   The notion of widespread income inequality tends to reinforce the oligarchy theory. And as always, the first step in correcting a problem, in getting our nation back from the Kochs, and Exxons, is that we need to be aware that the problem exists. 

   Then we’ve got to actually do something about it.

Oklahoma Postpones Execution after First is Botched.

Hobby Lobby's public school Bible class treats "moses' magic wand" as historical fact.

GOP Governor’s Ugly Bloodlust: Why Mary Fallin Should Account For State-Sanctioned Torture

Tom Coburn: Abolish minimum wage and let ‘free market’ decide how little workers make