Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Liz Was Right: 'Billies Have No Shame

Police release sketch of suspect who sexually assaulted woman rowing Lake Michigan for charity

Published: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 10:40 AM     Updated: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 10:42 AM
Jonathan Oosting | joosting@mlive.com
sexual-assault-suspect-lake-michigan.JPGAnyone who recognizes or may have seen this man is asked to call the MSP toll-free at 1-866-411-0018.
The Michigan State Police today released a sketch of a man suspected of sexually assaulting a woman in the Upper Peninsula who was attempting to row the entire perimeter of Lake Michigan for charity.
Seeking tips in the case, the MSP had a forensic artist sketch the suspect in hopes that the public will be able to identify and locate him.
Anyone with relevant information is asked to call the MSP toll-free at 1-866-411-0018.
Jen Gibbons, a Battle Creek native now living in Chicago, was attacked early Sunday as she rested in her boat near Schoolcraft County.
The 27-year-old chose to publicly identify herself online, partly in an attempt to inspire others facing similar difficulties, and vowed to continue her journey down the Michigan coast on bicycle before returning to the water in Muskegon.
"I still believe that there are more good people in the world than bad," she wrote Tuesday morning in a blog post on Row4ROW.org. "I still believe that life is a gift, even when it's scary and unfair. I still believe that life offers us the privilege, the opportunity, and the responsibility, to give something back, even when people try to take things away from us."
Gibbons, who founded the Recovery on Water charity for breast cancer survivors and is raising money for the cause, began her 1,500-mile trip from Chicago on June 15, rowing 20 to 30 miles a day, eating dehydrated food and sleeping in her boat.
Authorities believe her attacker traveled a significant distance to commit the assault in the Upper Peninsula's Mueller Township. He is described as a white male in his 30s, between 5'8" and 6" tall with a facial stubble but not a beard. He has light eyes, an average athletic build and short hair.
The suspect was last seen wearing a gray/green T-shirt, jean shorts and tennis shoes. A bright yellow Jeep Wrangler with a smiley-face spare tire cover also was seen in the area.
© 2012 MLive.com. All rights reserved.
Click here for more information.

Monday, July 16, 2012

And His Worst Possible Sentence is 10 Years in Prison!

West Virginia man accused of enslaving wife in chains for 10 years

Police say a West Virginia man kept his badly abused wife in chains.
A West Virginia man was arrested Thursday for allegedly making his wife his slave, abusing her and holding her hostage for almost a decade.  

Authorities in Jackson County, W.Va., charged Peter Lizon of Leroy, W.Va., with malicious wounding after a woman staying at a domestic-violence shelter filed a criminal complaint, alleging a woman she met was brutally beaten by her husband.
In an interview with investigators, the woman said she met Lizon’s wife, Stephanie, 43, while staying at the Family Crisis Intervention Center in Parkersburg, W.Va., and described her as “gaunt and filthy.”
According to the criminal complaint, Stephanie told the woman that she recently escaped from her husband, who had kept her chained up with metal padlocks for about 10 years, which tore into the skin on her hands and ankles, leaving noticeable scar tissue. Her feet were also “mutilated and swollen” after her husband allegedly smashed her foot with a scoop attachment from a farm tractor.
West Virginia Regional Jail
A West Virginia man, Peter Lizon, was arrested and charged with malicious wounding for allegedly enslaving his wife for 10 years.
“This is a case that is tenfold of what our average domestic is and maybe more than that,” Jackson County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Tony Boggs told NBC affiliate WSAZ. “It comes down to what appears to be slavery and torture.”
Lizon reportedly called his wife his "slave," and whenever he entered the room, he made her kneel down before him.
The woman also alleged that Stephanie said her husband caused her to have a miscarriage after her husband hit her in the stomach. She said she buried the corpse of a fully developed infant on their farm. She also said she gave birth to another baby while bound by chains, but neither she nor her now-one-year-old child had received any medical attention.  
During the investigation, police obtained 45 photos of Stephanie from the shelter, showing injuries ranging from severe burns to her breasts and back to broken fingers and bruises all over her body.
“It’s amazing what one human being can do to another,” Boggs said, “and that should not ever happen or be allowed to happen. And hopefully this will stop and curtail that, at least in this instance.”
Lizon’s attorney, Shawn Bayliss, told WSAZ the allegations against Lizon are false, saying the woman who told police everything has a “feeble mind.”
Lizon is being held in the South Central Regional Jail in lieu of $300,000 bail.  
Chief Boggs told msnbc.com malicious wounding is likely to net Lizon between two to 10 years in prison. 
According to the criminal complaint, Stephanie escaped from Lizon on June 18 while he was returning farm equipment to a rental store in Parkersburg. He left her and their child in the family's vehicle. While Lizon was inside, she walked away, leaving her child in the car, and hid in a Zumba dance facility. People there gave her money for a taxi ride to the shelter where checked in under the name "Serena Sokol." Staff at the shelter later determined her true identity. She was treated for her injuries in an emergency room on June 20. 
Chief Boggs told msnbc.com he would not discuss the current whereabouts of Lizon’s one-year-old child, but said child protective services have been made aware of the situation.
A spokesperson for the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services told msnbc.com that state law forbids child protective services from disclosing the details of specific cases.

Monday, July 2, 2012

FL Gov Tells Citizens He's Fine With Them Dieing Uninsured

What is it about Southern politicians that lets them crap on their voters and still get re-elected? Gov. Rick Scott of Florida will turn down the opportunity for his citizens to have affordable health care through state-wide insurance exchanges.


According to Fox News:
Florida, the state the led the fight against President Obama's health care law, will not comply with the Supreme Court opinion.
Gov. Rick Scott tells Fox News that he and his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, will work tirelessly to make sure the law is repealed. He feels that can be done by electing officials, like Mitt Romney, who have vowed to fight the law before 2014, when most of its provisions kick in.
If that doesn't happen, Scott insists he still won't "implement these exchanges that will increase the cost of health and make Medicaid worse."

However, statistically (which may be the problem since math and 'billies don't mix), Florida is the third worst state for citizens without health care insurance. Further, according to 24/7Wall St.
 
Florida
> Excess deaths from a lack of insurance (per 100,000): 12.06
> Pct. of population uninsured: 21.3% (3rd highest)
> Pct. living below the poverty line: 16.5% (16th highest)
> Life expectancy at birth: 79.7 years (12th highest)
The sheer number of excess deaths from a lack of insurance in Florida is staggering: 12,336 from 2005 through 2010. The driving factor for this imposing total is that 21.3% of the population is uninsured — the third-highest rate among all states. Floridians may have difficulty affording health insurance — median income was just $44,400 in 2010. Meanwhile, only 45.7% of residents have employer-based health insurance, while just 15.6% of residents received Medicaid benefits. Both of these rates are among the lowest in the country.

Scott's excuse? Job killing, the Republican excuse for everything. Since Dubya Bush was a Republican, I guess they figure that they're experts on the subject.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Damn It's Easy to Cheat 'Billies

Georgia to Spend $100 Million Meant for Helping Homeowners on Corporate Giveaways Instead

By Pat Garofalo

Several states have been taking their share of the $25 billion foreclosure fraud settlement that was crafted in February with the nation’s five biggest banks and, instead of using the money for its intended purpose of providing foreclosure relief to troubled homeowners, have used it to bolster other areas of their budgets. Georgia lawmakers, for instance, have been planning to stash nearly $100 million from the settlement into their state’s general fund.
As Kate Little, president of the Georgia State Trade Association of Nonprofit Developers wrote today, that money did indeed wind up in the state’s general budget, where it will be spent on corporate giveaways — economic programs meant to entice companies to move to Georgia — rather than helping homeowners:
According to Georgia’s Attorney General Sam Olens, the state’s Constitution requires such funds to be deposited in the general fund with the General Assembly responsible for determining how to allocate the money.
Gov. Nathan Deal and the General Assembly decided in the waning days of the 2012 session to divide the money between the Regional Economic Business Assistance (REBA) and the One Georgia Authority.
That means that none of the funds will go to address foreclosures, even though Georgia has consistently ranked in the top five of states across the country with the highest rates of foreclosure.
Georgia is hardly alone in siphoning off foreclosure settlement funds to plug holes in its budget. But using the money for corporate handouts — which often backfire on a state and lead to a race to the bottom as states attempt to out-do each other in terms of the biggest giveaways — is doubly insulting to homeowners depending on the settlement to provide them with a lifeline.
To read the entire article and comments go to NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/georgia-spend-100-million-meant-helping-homeowners-corporate-giveaways-instead-1340032952.

Monday, June 4, 2012

NC Legislature Tries to Prove Its Citizens Are Dumber Than Dirt

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand

A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to ignore sea level predictions based on global warming

June 1, 2012
Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's state legislature is considering a bill that would require the government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of ocean and climate scientists.
Business interests along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be factored into the state's development plans for the coast.
[Poll: Republicans Coming Around on Global Warming]
"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson, chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but computers and speculation."
That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.
"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their ability to develop in their communities."
 The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up controversy states:
"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"
The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.
"Clearly they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."
"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo. They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.
Read the full article and comments here.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Q: What Do You Need to Do When a W Va Pentecostal Preacher is Killed by a Rattlesnake Bite?..... A: Get More Rattlesnakes!

Snake-handling preacher dies from rattlesnake bite in West Virginia


Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA
Pastor Mack Wolford handles a timber rattlesnake during a service at the Church of the Lord Jesus in Jolo, W.Va., on Sept. 3.

West Virginia preacher Mark Randall "Mack" Wolford, who believed Christians should handle snakes to test their faith, died after a rattlesnake bit him over the weekend.

Wolford was bitten on the thigh about 2 p.m. Sunday afternoon, but he didn't come to the hospital until 10:30 p.m., a nursing supervisor at Bluefield Regional Medical Center  told the Charleston Daily Mail. The incident occurred during an outdoor service at Panther State Forest, about 80 miles west of Bluefield in southern West Virginia, the paper said.

Wolford had turned 44 on Saturday. He had seen his father die of a snakebite when he was teenager, the Daily Mail reported.

The Washington Post Magazine had profiled Wolford in a story in November about the snake-handling faith. The Post said adherents cite Mark 16:17-18: “And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Snake-handling is legal in West Virginia, and Wolford was trying to keep it alive there and in neighboring states where it is not, the Post reported.

The Daily Mail reported that Wolford was bitten Sunday by a yellow timber rattlesnake -- named Sheba -- that he had often handled.

Wolford's sister told the Post that during the service he passed the snake to another church member and his mother, then laid it on the ground. "He sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh," the sister said, according to the Post.

The Post said Wolford was taken to a relative's house in Bluefield to recover, as he had from previous bites, but his condition worsened.

To read the full story plus comments click here.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Q: What's Dumber than A Southern Baptist Preacher? A: His Congregation

Since this isn't Christian, American or scientifically rational, it can only be attributed to dumb-ass 'billy hatred.

 North Carolina Anti-Gay Pastor In 1978: Gays Used To Be ‘Hung, Bless God, From A White Oak Tree’

Worley
The anti-gay North Carolina pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church has been facing backlash over his recent sermon in which he said the US should pen in “all the lesbians and queers” with an electrified fence and wait for them to “die out.”
But it turns out Worley has been saying offensive things about gay people for decades.
Jeremy Hooper dug up this bit of hate from Worley in 1978, in which Worley says that “40 years ago” gay people would have been hung “from a white oak tree”:

WORLEY: I’m God’s preacher. I just believe the book. Living in a day when, you know what, it saddens my heart to think that homosexuals can go around, bless God, and get the applause of a lot of people. Lesbians and all the rest of it? Bless God, forty years ago they’d have hung ‘em, bless God, from a white oak tree, wouldn’t they? Amen.
Listen to it here.

Update:
 Today David Pakman interviewed a lesbian who has a family member who belongs to Worley’s congregation and who has personally attended Pastor Worley’s church. She told him that she was “not surprised” by Worley’s comments, adding that there were “quite a few ‘Amens’ from the congregation”:

 

For the complete article plus comments please visit here.

    Friday, May 11, 2012

    Too Bad Her Name Wasn't Zimmerman


    Marissa Alexander Gets 20 Year Sentence for ‘Standing Her Ground’

    marissa alexander
    Marissa Alexander
    *(Via Jacksonville.com) – As expected, a judge sentenced Marissa Alexander to a mandatory term of 20 years in prison this morning despite her claim that she was standing her ground when she fired what she has called a warning shot in the presence of an abusive husband and his two children.
    Alexander was convicted in March of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
    The jury found that she had indeed discharged the firearm in the incident, resulting in her mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years due to Florida’s “10-20-Life” statutes.
    In a courtroom protest, a group of young (people) stood and sang “We who believe in justice will not rest!”
    Circuit Judge James Daniel ordered the group out of the courtroom and out of the building entirely.
    Afterward U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown also challenged State Attorney Angela Corey at the courthouse saying the charges were overboard and labeled the case “institutional racism.” She said she has the best domestic violence attorney looking into and as well as other prejudicial outcomes against blacks. This is the beginning, not the end, she said.
    Corey was firm in the punishment, noting Alexander’s gunshot easily could have ricocheted and hit the children or husband.
    Alexander, 31, has claimed that she was in fear of her life from her husband, 36-year-old Rico Gray, when she went to the garage of their home and armed herself during an August 2010 dispute that had already gotten physical.
    Read/learn more at Jacksonville.com.

    Thursday, May 10, 2012

    Taking Christ Out of Christian the 'Billy Way

    This moron claims to be speaking for God. I don't need to judge him. Jesus already addressed the situation.
    Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


    Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
    Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Wednesday, May 9, 2012

    North Carolina State Motto: Esse quam videri



    Few are those who wish to be endowed with virtue rather than to seem so
    eCard available here

    Friday, April 20, 2012

    Factual Statistics vs. North Carolina Racism

    GET UPDATES FROM Cassy Stubbs

    A Case for Statistics and a Victory for Justice

    Posted: 04/20/2012 10:57 am

    In a remarkable victory over racial bias in the death penalty, Marcus Robinson will not be executed by the State of North Carolina but will instead spend the rest of his life in prison after a judge ruled today that his death sentence was tainted by racial discrimination in jury selection. The central dispute in Robinson's case, the first test under North Carolina's new Racial Justice Act, boiled down to a fundamental question: is it fair to use statistical evidence to show racial bias in capital jury selection?
    In Robinson's case, powerful statistical evidence of racial bias in jury selection was introduced, including a study from Michigan State University finding that North Carolina prosecutors were twice as likely to remove qualified Black jurors from jury service as other jurors, even after the researchers controlled for alternative explanations such as criminal background or reservations about imposing a death sentence.

    The state offered no meaningful rebuttal to the statistical evidence. No statistical expert testified for the state that race did not play a role in jury selection. Rather, the State lodged a frontal attack on the concept of statistical evidence itself. In its closing argument, the prosecution argued that the problem with the Robinson's statistical evidence is that it tries "to get people to lose sight of the trees and focus on the forest." At the end of the argument, the prosecution was even more direct: it pleaded with the judge not to make a decision "with respect to the Racial Justice Act based upon numbers." 

    The State's forest and trees analogy was a useful one. For years, prosecutors have been able to deny discrimination on a tree-by-tree basis — in individual cases — arguing, for example, that the real reason a Black juror was struck was because she was too old. Or too young. Or went to college. Or didn't graduate from high school. But not that she was Black. Under the new legal standard of North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, however, defendants can rely on statistical evidence from cases statewide. What statistics allowed Robinson — and all of us as citizens of North Carolina — to do was compare the prosecutors' explanations across cases. The forest view of North Carolina jury selection is a picture of discrimination. The evidence shows unequivocally that among old people and young, college graduates and high school dropouts, single and married folks, death penalty opponents and supporters, Black jurors were struck at higher rates than their white counterparts. Statistics allowed that picture to come into crystal-clear focus.
    Today, the judge applied the plain language of the statute permitting statistical evidence, and weighed all of the evidence — including the unrefuted and powerful statistics. He found pervasive evidence of bias over the last 20 years in North Carolina jury selection, and he ruled for Marcus Robison. It probably didn't hurt that the statistical evidence confirms what all trial lawyers know to be true: race matters in jury selection. For years, it has been an open secret that prosecutors and defense lawyers strike jurors based on racial stereotypes. Both sides strike based on the view — often erroneous — that white jurors are good for the prosecutors and Black jurors are good for the defense.

    The judge's decision is an important victory for more than just Marcus Robinson. Looking back, the Robinson decision is really the first significant win since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to fairness in the death penalty 25 years ago this Sunday, ruling in McCleskey v. Kemp that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities could not be used to overturn death sentences because such disparities were "inevitable." Today's decision, and the RJA itself, stand as a powerful rebuke to the Supreme Court's defeatist view of discrimination. It signals both that North Carolina will not tolerate a system of capital punishment built on the back of rampant discrimination and that it is possible to take systemic discrimination seriously.
    The decision is also important for what is says about the future. It provides North Carolina prosecutors — and defense counsel — with an opportunity to take a hard look at the role race has played in jury selection and make the necessary changes to ensure that jury selection is no longer tainted by racial stereotyping. Should State prosecutors choose to ignore the Robinson decision, and go about business as usual in capital jury selection, they will do so at their own peril. Changes in jury selection are important for the fair selection of capital juries, but also for all of us. Discrimination in the selection of juries inflicts harm and humiliation on excluded jurors and undermines the integrity of the courts system and our democracy as a whole. Today's judgment firmly steers us towards a future without race based jury selection, and towards a restoration of trust and integrity to the courts.
    Click here to read the entire article and read the comments

    Thursday, April 19, 2012

    Ted Nugent: Notorious Northern Dumb Ass 'Billy

    Reading about the right's newest icon, Ted Nugent, fills me with as much joy as the Tea Party's hero four years ago, Joe the Plumber did. Apparently, so few people outside of the 1% agree with the Right Wing that when someone, anyone in the 99%, says anything uber-conservative or reactionary, they are immediately elevated as a Republican Sage, no background check required. So when Joe the Plumber turned out to not be a plumber and his knowledge of tax codes proved to be substantially less than his knowledge of plumbing, you might think the Republicans would sweep him under the rug, away from microphones and the camera's glare.
    You would be wrong. Joe (real name Samuel Wurzelbacher) is running for congress to represent the people of northeast Ohio. Personally, I can't wait for Mama Grizzly to show up so the two of them can have a televised "Dumb Off" where the person who knows the least about our country gets full Tea Party backing for another four years.
    Ah yes. But Ted Nugent. The self described Michigan Madman but actually Michigan's most famous dumb ass billy. Ted's entire following, not only in Michigan but across the country, are paranoid yahoos whose entire wardrobe is variations of what they lovingly refer to as "camo".
    The only real problem looming is some wise ass conservatives have already Googled Ted, then ran as far from him as they could get. C'mon guys, this the "Nuge", the NRA member who threatened the President's life! The guy who thinks it should be illegal not to own guns! And apparently, the machine gun-toting billy who decided that not bathing or changing his clothes after defecating in them would keep him out of the VietNam war. It worked, albeit the psychopath deferment issue was skirted with a friendlier 1-Y (student) pass. Hey, it's all in this interview from the July 15, 1990 Detroit Free Press.
    But now, conservative columnist and blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered that Ted not only has recently been sued for non-payment of child support (a true Libertarian), fathered seven children by five different women, but he's also a pedophile who bargained with his under-age girlfriend's parents to sign her over to his guardianship, and had oral sex with a twelve year old Courtney Love.
    Then calling the Catholic Church an "in house gang of pedophiles" demonstrates his inability to interpret himself and to reject responsibility for his actions, worthy of the craziest sociopaths of all time.
    But true billies are a forgiving (or more likely uninformed...by choice) lot, as the star of this blog's last posting, Rep. Allen West (R - FL), stated that Ted's veiled threat concerning President Obama was really "just expressing ... maybe his opinion about something"
    And even that bulwark of the Clueless Right, Governor Rick Perry (R- TX), has a high opinion of the Motor City Moron, even considering him "a good friend.". Perry hired the jerk to perform at his 2007 Inaugural Ball. The "Nuge", wearing a confederate flag tee shirt, is said to have hollered some very offensive comments about non-English speaking Texas residents that night, but of course the folks at the ball couldn't remember a thing about it. They seemingly all had whatever memory problem it is that the graceless Gov. himself suffers from.

    Wednesday, April 11, 2012

    Don't Have To Be White To Be A Dumb Ass 'Billy



    Allen West: Obama Is Afraid Of Me, There Are Communists In Congress

    Not that I believed he had an actual chance of being Mitt Romney’s choice as a running mate, but Allen West has effectively squandered whatever minuscule chance of being the Republican nominee for Vice President he had. All it took was the Florida Republican Congressman to be himself before a crowd. At a recent town-hall meeting West leveled some dubious accusations against President Obama and Democratic members of Congress.
    SEE MORE: Media Cautious on Tulsa Killings
    Via the Palm Beach Post:
    The conservative tea party icon also got in shots at Democrats and President Obama, who spoke Tuesday at Florida Atlantic University. West said Obama was “scared” to have a discussion with him. He later said “he’s heard” up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn’t name names.
    Oh, that doesn’t sound the least bit crazy at all, now does it? I imagine he wouldn’t name any names because there aren’t any. I’ll wait for him to not share that information with you all later, though. I’d hate to ruin the suspense.
    I will say this: Herman Cain endorsement or not (because it’s oh so valuable), Allen West will not be sharing anything but a handshake this election season.
    Read more at the Palm Beach Post.




    Wednesday, April 4, 2012

    They Think Obama Is a Muslim. I Think They're Idiots. One of Us Is Right.


    Survey Shows Majority of Alabama/Mississippi Voters

                                    Think Obama Is Muslim  

    According to a recently-released survey, many Alabama and Mississippi Republicans overwhelmingly believe President Obama to be Muslim. Public Policy Polling asked Republicans in the two states, “Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?” In Alabama, 45% said “Muslim”, 41% said “unsure.” Only 14% said that the President is Christian.
    Mississippi Republicans were even more distrusting of President Obama’s faith, with 52% saying he was Muslim, 36% unsure and only 12% saying Christian.
    Since the beginning of his presidency, Obama has been dogged by rumors that he was lying about being a Christian, despite religious scholars calling his faith “explicitly Christian.”
    Obama may be the most explicitly Christian president in American history,” Messiah College professor John Fea wrote in February. “If we analyze his language in the same way that historians examine the religious language of the Founding Fathers or even George W. Bush, we will find that Obama’s piety, use of the Bible, and references to Christian faith and theology put most other American presidents to shame on this front. I think there may be good reasons why some people will not vote for Obama in November, but his commitment to Christianity is not one of them.”
    Click here for full article and comments.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2012

    Tennessee: Ignorant and Proud of It

    Tennessee legislature boldly sets the science clocks back 150 years

    The Tennessee legislature — apparently jealous that the people running Louisiana are hogging all the laughing stock — is possibly about to pass an antiscience bill designed specifically to make it easier for teachers to allow creationism in their classroom.
    The bill passed the House last year, but then a similar bill was put on hold in the Senate. Unfortunately, it was put to the Senate floor earlier this week and passed. It will have to be reconciled with the House bill, but it’s expected to pass. It’ll have to then go to the Governor to sign it into law.
    Basically, the bill will make sure teachers can discuss creationism in the classroom, as well as global warming denialism. The House version states,
    This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming.
    That whole "strengths and weaknesses" is for all intent and purpose a lie; we’ve seen it many times before. Of course science has strengths and weaknesses, but what these people are looking to do is be able to say any kind of antiscience rhetoric in the classroom and not get called on it. What the bill should call for is legislators to be tested on the strengths and weaknesses of their creationist beliefs that clearly contradict what’s known about the real world. Or, better yet, how what they’re trying to do violates the Constitution of the United States.
    I would pay good money to sit and listen to that.
    I also wonder how the Tennessee lawmakers would feel if, say, teachers used this potential law to teach about Islam, or astrology, or Wiccan beliefs. That would be interesting indeed.
    If you want more, Josh Rosenau has a great summary, as does Cara Santa Maria at the Huffington Post, and, of course, the NCSE. It’s not clear to me that the Governor will sign this bill; Josh’s post has more on that. But even if he doesn’t, all those creationist climate change deniers will simply try again in some different way.
    If you live in Tennessee, you should let the Governor know how you feel, and right away. Otherwise…




        
    Read the article and over 100 comments here.

    Friday, March 23, 2012

    Who Needs Obamacare? Just Stiff The Hospital!

    Plaintiff challenging healthcare law went bankrupt – with unpaid medical bills

    Obama administration lawyers say her case is an example of why an insurance mandate is needed to prevent 'uncompensated care that will ultimately be paid by others.'

    By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
    7:46 PM PST, March 8, 2012
    Reporting from Washington
    Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue.

    Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

    But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the government can require people to buy health insurance. Under the law, those who fail to buy insurance after 2014 could face a fine of up to $700.

    The business federation, along with other critics of the law, calls the insurance mandate a "threat to individual liberty" that violates the Constitution.

    Obama administration lawyers argue that the requirement is justified because everyone, sooner or later, needs healthcare. Those who fail to have insurance are at high risk of running up bills they cannot pay, sticking the rest of society with the cost, they argue. Brown's situation, they say, is a perfect example of exactly that kind of "uncompensated care that will ultimately be paid by others."

    "This is so ironic," Jane Perkins, a health law expert in North Carolina, said of Brown's situation. "It just shows that all Americans inevitably have a need for healthcare. Somebody has paid for her healthcare costs. And she is now among the 62% whose personal bankruptcy was attributable in part to medical bills."

    Lawyers who represent Brown dispute the significance of her bankruptcy. They say her unpaid medical bills were only a small part of her debts and did not cause her bankruptcy. They say that she and her husband owe $55,000 to others, including credit card companies. And they say her financial troubles were caused by the failure of her auto repair shop.

    Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.

    "I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have insurance right now?"

    Brown's problems are not likely to affect the outcome in the high court. In January, the business group told the court it had found two new plaintiffs who could take Brown's place. But Brown played a crucial role in the case reaching the Supreme Court.

    "There was time pressure" to find a plaintiff for the case, Harned said. "And candidly, it is not as easy as it sounds" to find someone. She recalls that Brown was outspoken and stepped forward as a volunteer. The lawyers found a second plaintiff in Kaj Ahlburg, a retired New York investment banker living in Port Angeles, Wash.

    But when U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson declared the mandate unconstitutional in January 2011, he pointed to Mary Brown's complaint. "She is a small-business owner" who "does not believe the cost of health insurance is a wise or acceptable use of her resources," he said.

    In August, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed. Florida and 25 other states were suing, but they needed an individual to contest the mandate. "Mary Brown has standing to challenge the individual mandate," the judges said, and "as long as at least one plaintiff has standing to raise" the claim, the court can rule. The Obama administration appealed, and the Supreme Court said in November it would decide the constitutional challenge.

    But by then, Brown's small auto repair shop near Panama City, Fla., had closed, and she and her husband had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits.

    Her bankruptcy came to light in December, when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed her about her role in the historic case. In a video interview, Brown said freedom from government was the issue. "I'm not fighting just for me," she said. "It's my choice to have healthcare, not theirs."

    Shortly afterward, lawyers for the National Federation of Independent Business informed the court of Brown's troubles, and sent along a copy of her bankruptcy filing.

    The couple owed $2,140 to Bay Medical Center in Panama City, $610 to Bay Medical Physicians, $835 to an eye doctor in Alabama and $900 to a specialist in Mississippi.

    "This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and uncompensated care every year," said Christa Hild, a spokeswoman for the hospital center. "If it's a bad debt, we have to absorb it."

    The business group's lawyers say they weren't backing away from their bankrupt plaintiff. "She wants to continue in the case. And as long as she doesn't want healthcare, she qualifies as a plaintiff in our mind," Harned said.

    latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story
    david.savage@latimes.com

    Ian Duncan in the Washington Bureau contributed to this report.

    Thursday, March 22, 2012

    Why the South Should Have been Allowed to Secede #469



    Don't know which is more pathetic in a grown man...racism or a fifth grade education...and proud of both.