PRIDE - Something to Celebrate

Over the years, I've heard many people question why there are Pride festivals, what LGBT people are "proud" of; why they need a festival and/or a parade to be "proud"; and especially in recent years, why we need to keep having it now that everything's better. ('Cause that's how it works; racism is all better, too.)

First of all, you can google Stonewall. That's where "Gay Pride" started, a celebration of survival and solidarity and "pride" as a counter to shame, the latter being where too many have lived and continue to live their lives.

That should be enough. But to go further, am I "proud" of being gay? Well no, not particularly. It's not something I "accomplished," after all, the "gayness" itself. It's just who - and what - I am, and it's just one of a host of characteristics I couldn't deny even if I wanted to. But it's a thing that other people have turned into a big freaking deal, and too often used as an insult, a joke, a denigration, or a weapon against me.

But even knowing that, I have never lied about who I am. It took me a good long while to uncover it, to outgrow the small-town, childish insults and name-calling, the meaning of which I didn't even understand at the time. But once I did figure it out, I never lied. I never hid this characteristic from anyone. I have often been nicer to strangers than I felt like being, because I could feel prejudice flaking off of them as they moved through my space, and you do what you can to minimize harm to yourself, or risk of it. I consciously make myself as unthreatening as possible, in hopes that the truth of this characteristic is received smoothly, but I am always truthful. I have never hidden who I was dating from family or friends, changed pronouns, pretended or asked them to pretend they were less to me than they were, or even purposely maintained distance from people I wouldn't have otherwise because I was afraid of their reactions. 

I am proud of my self-awareness, and my long and continuing pursuit of more of it.
I am proud of my honesty, even when it's really hard.
I am proud of my willingness to live in the open.
I am proud of my courage, and it does take some.
I am proud of my ability to reassure the uncertain that I am not a threat, even though I should not have to.
I am proud of my ability to remain kind and compassionate in my heart, even in moments of great anger, or at least return to it quickly when I slip.
I am proud that I am also not a doormat, that I am unafraid of fully expressing what I'm feeling.
I am proud of my resilience, my ability and willingness to remain all of these things even with so many people so motivated to hurt me for this one thing about me.
I am proud of my fellow LGBT+ people who practice the above with me and demand respect for me and for themselves, even when they're rewarded with violence.

This Pride is not an arrogant pride. It is a constant and a comfort, an emotional touchstone that lends strength in darker moments and reminds us of the solidarity we have with each other. It's community. It's hope and determination... and forgiveness. It is self-perpetuating and grows exponentially when embraced and practiced consistently. It makes me better, and it makes the world better, and it deserves to be celebrated. It deserves a parade.

Our PULSE Beats On

CNN reports that his father says he was deeply upset by seeing two men kissing in front of his family a couple months ago.

I do not care what religion or nationality the killer was (even if that's all the media and far too many anti-LGBT politicians can talk about). Those factors have nothing to do with this at all. Get that straight first. He was just as likely to be a white, 5th generation American, "christian" with stupidly poorly restricted access to stupidly unnecessary guns, especially at this point in our ignorant, violent, prejudice-driven history. And do NOT make this all about ISIS, because that would be a huge cop-out from admitting what good old American hate does to people all on its own, which still lacks some serious admitting." All Americans" are not feeling the effects of this attack. "All Americans" are not condemning it. "All Americans" are not "standing together" in the face of it. I guaranfuckingtee you that a whole lot of Americans are saying "'they' had it coming." And ignoring that is as cowardly as the act itself.

For all the admonishments I've already seen to not let it matter not only who the killer was but who the victims were or his motive for killing THEM, sorry, you're just wrong. And if you're straight, you need to think really hard about that, because it's an insulting level of privilege. When 50 people are killed solely because they are who I AM, "why" matters. We don't just share hobbies or interests; we might share none. We share a single characteristic that we can do nothing about. It doesn't make us more likely to have cancer or freckles or some kind of allergy; it ONLY makes us more likely to be beaten and tied to a fencepost in rural Wyoming or shot in a nightclub in Orlando or subject to a million acts of violence in between... for nothing more than living our lives openly and honestly and with a modicum of self-esteem and self-respect. If I lived in Orlando and felt like going out, this is the kind of place I would go. If you know me and care about me, understand that, because it's not limited to a specific city or state or building. This attitude is rampant, especially right now, this ridiculous hatred of LGBT+ people.

When you see this hate sanctioned in a hundred ways every day, by everybody from businesses to churches to states to friends and family, "why" absolutely matters. If you hate "gays" (or transgender or bisexual people) or go around saying stupid shit like "I don't hate anybody, but it's just wrong" or "I don't hate anybody but I don't want them in the bathroom with me" -- or you hate or fear BEing "gay" and let the people around you dictate to you whom it's "acceptable" for you to LOVE -- you fuel the environment that makes this more likely. You condone the hate and shame and the false, empty idea that there's any basis for it. It could happen anyway, but I guarantee you that the nasty attitude and gas thrown on it simply because more of us can get married anywhere now makes me feel a lot more at risk of being one of these victims than I would be if the bigots among us would all just quit being bigots.

But it still doesn't make me wish I weren't gay, because there's not a fucking thing wrong with me. Get that through your heads, too. I will continue to be gay and happy and entirely at peace with myself and only because of that, able to live in a way that I can and will continue to be loving toward all other groups, since we insist on having "groups," including the groups of you who hate me for being me. My "gay" doesn't hurt anybody. Bias hurts everybody.

I will be at a table at Twin Cities Pride the weekend after next (6/25-26), Loring Park. Feel free to stop by. I AM gay, couldn't change it for you if I wanted to and don't want to. For anybody who has wondered why LGBT+ people have "Pride" festivals -- THIS is exactly why, and Pulse will continue to beat in all of us. Some of you break my heart, but I will not let anybody's cowardly, ignorant, wasted hate shame me or scare me. See you there.

"Independent" Wealth? What a Load of Crap.

Gotta love Facebook. I saw this post earlier, and it set me off:

"I think I found the solution to the US debt problem:

Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000 for life
Salary of House/Senate...$174,000 for life
Salary of Speaker of the House...$223,500 for life
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400 for life
Average Salary of a teacher...$40,065 per year
Average Salary of Soldier Deployed in Afghanistan...$38,000 per year

I think we found where the cuts should be made!"

Actually, the president does get a decent percentage of his/her $400,000 salary for a pension (after running our COUNTRY, with none of the $15 million Wall Street bonuses), but most congress members don't get anywhere near their salaries for life. They DO pay into Social Security, and they ARE on the same retirement plans we were on in the postal service, except that they're required to contribute a bigger chunk of their salaries to them (per Senate website et al.).

They also have to serve at least 5 years to be eligible for a partial pension, at least 20 years to be eligible for their full pension at age 50 (same as p.o. and other fed. jobs), or they have to be at least 62 or have served at least 25 years, to collect the money they contributed from their own salaries. There are other factors, too, like military advantage and which specific plans they choose, and whether or not they invest in other savings funds. They also voted overwhelmingly in both 2010 and 2011 to not accept federally mandated cost-of-living increases.

(Lots of people continue to whine and cry for term limits, but that's just an excuse to not vote and get even lazier about it. We have always had term limits: They're called elections. If we legislate limits, even fewer people will give enough of a damn to get off their asses and vote than do now.)

Now, as far as the president's salary goes, personally, I wouldn't take less than 5x that amount for trying to guide the lazy, selfish, ignorant, hateful babies that seem to take up a greater percentage of our potentially awesome country every day. We shouldn't be at war, and teachers are dreadfully underpaid, always have been. There's no mistaking those issues. But the problem is still mostly outside of government.

Only 20% of our population make over 50% of our aggregate income, with the top 5% making over 20% of it themselves, and these aren't primarily people making a comparatively piddly $400K a year or less. These are also the people with the most tax breaks. "They made it, they should get to keep it," people like to argue. Well, who did they make it OFF of, so to speak? (Besides teachers and soldiers, for starters.) Well, if not the dime-an-hour victims of multiple American human rights violations worldwide, then likely off of the "lower" 80% of Americans who work in their factories and offices and drive their shit around the country. A whopping 80% of our people make less than half the aggregate income. 60% of our people take in around a QUARTER of our aggregate income. (This is all available on the Census site, per the 2010 census, numbers reported by people about themselves, not propagated by the mythical "liberal media.")

In other words, say you buy a car from a group of ten people for $100. Two of the people, probably the two who made the deal, take $50, half the money. Two of them take another $25 to share. The other six people have to share the last $25 of the profits, even though they're probably the ones who dragged the car home from the junk shop, fixed it up, painted it, maybe lost a couple of fingers in the whole process, inhaled some lead, that kind of thing. Well, news flash, I'm one of those six. Bigger news flash, you're probably one of those six. The other four are the ones voting consistently and the top two are the ones paying for the elections that decide your fate. They're even willing to cut your six-way-shared $25 down even further, whatever it takes to avoid parting with one more cent of their $25 apiece.

A few more numbers you need to consider... Between 1984 and 2009, the annual mean household income of the lowest-earning 20% of our good American people went from $5,436 to $11,552 (as of just 2 years ago, 20% of the people here are living - or trying to - on an average of just over $11K/year). In those same years, between 1984 and 2009, the mean income of the highest-earning 20% went from $62,121 to $170,844. The top 5% went from $93,774 to $295,388. And President Obama just wanted the top 2% to pay what they owe, without all the damn loopholes! Conservative or liberal, educated or not, it's not hard to see the formula here: the rich get richer by climbing up the backs of the poor, even while DENYING THEIR EXISTENCE and cutting the lifelines necessitated by their exploitation. And yet the ridiculously wealthy don't want to pay ALL of THEIR taxes???? OMG. I am so sick of the vitriolic rhetoric and blatant lies thrown around by that top 20% to protect their damn assets! The problem is NOT our government in practice (which is us, by the way). The problem is our GREED.

The last time the market tanked, my wife and I scraped together a little money (literally) and bought some stocks. One of the companies I bought was Williams-Sonoma. You know why? Because I was betting that the people who shop there wouldn't feel as pinched, they'd still need their supplies, and they weren't about to start slumming and buying their base-model Teflon pans at Wal-Mart. Because I was right, our 13 shares have more than tripled in value, yep, even after this week. I wish it was enough to get us health insurance, or married in our home state. We're Americans, too, and the bullshit Tea Party version of "small government" is our worst enemy. If the other 60-80% of you were paying attention instead of just constantly whipping the ass of the rhetorical dragon to get more fire, you'd know they're your worst enemy, too.

A few credits...if you want more, find them like I did.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary-hr-5146

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/another-zero-pay-increase-for-congress/

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html

Osama bin Laden, Party Politics, and Death By HMD

There are some things that I would think can be counted on with a "covert operation." There are some odd elements to it. There are definite curiosities about some of the details. But I don't believe for a second that if the U.S. were gloating so about this and he weren't dead, that he'd miss the opportunity to tell us himself here directly. My reasons for not wanting the "death photos" released aren't limited to their gruesomeness and the fact that not only serious, rational adults would be viewing them (although that should suffice), it's that I don't want to listen to the ongoing skepticism, and it would definitely go on, and on, and on.

The bottom line is that the only way I could be "SURE" is if I'd shot him myself. Beyond that, I have to make some choices at some point, based on thoughtful consideration and critical analysis of what information I can gather as to what's plausible, and the basic gist of the story is, to me, plenty plausible. Since I'm not deep in celebration and don't have that much invested because I have not been "living under the cloud of terrorism for 10 years," another choice I made even before the 9/11/01 news had taken its first breath, I'm also not invested in knowing the finest details of the death of this one man.

All of a sudden it makes a difference if he was unarmed? I don't believe that the dancing, cheering partiers care one bit, and if the rest of us do, perhaps it's the conditions we use to ever "justify" taking a life that are the problem. I would have infinitely preferred he be taken alive, tried, questioned, held to account, made to face his countless victims and their families, maybe even learned from...but he wasn't, and here we are. Since the bulk of the photographs I've ever seen of him as an adult, even at comparative leisure, show him not only armed, but very heavily armed, I'm not too inclined to believe reports that he, this one time, was not armed at all, at any point, and I also would never seek to jeopardize the members of the SEAL team and intelligence personnel and their families by demanding their identities and eyewitness accounts. Either way, it simply doesn't change anything about the gap in this situation between my ideal and my reality, armed or unarmed.

I don't care where the intelligence came from, because it would still never make me a proponent of torture, and I would hate, hate, hate to find myself in the president's position going into this. (A) Finally apprehend the most notorious terrorist leader of our day using information built upon information that happened to have been gained years ago by waterboarding another terrorist, when torture was a method prioritized by that administration, or (B) let him walk rather than knowingly subject yourself to even more irrational criticism. And still today they call him conceited and selfish. The truth is that he didn't even have access to a selfish option.

But what about proof? "We want proof!" Ah, yes..."proof"...surprisingly slippery little concept, as it turns out, since DNA's now apparently easier to manipulate than Photoshop. The only reason I was glad that President Obama released his long-form birth certificate is that it answered, in no uncertain terms, nothing about his only foolishly-challenged citizenship, but everything about the intent of the chronic skeptics. This lesson must not be underestimated: there are no answers, not for those "skeptics" (not the rationally critical but the ones who foam at the mouth with it).

What drives the rabid should not even be called "skepticism" but just basic "true believer" bullshit efforts to get what they really want, which may not even be identifiable separate from the faces of their designated saviors. There will be no progress for them under President Barack Obama. Their leaders have very effectively made him their "devil," like Hitler made the Jews, and, again, nobody seems to have the courage to change their course, even if they have any nagging doubts. This is not just my subjective opinion, only my acceptance of their position declared and repeated by them with their behavior: if you GET something you WANT, you're satisfied; if you're NEVER satisfied with what you GET, it is clearly NOT what you WANT.

I get it; I do not need them to tell me again. There were never any "birthers." There were only opportunists and their followers, and I will regard them accordingly from here on.

Their having made that abundantly clear, I see absolutely no reason to release pictures of a bullet-riddled body, pictures that would further dehumanize not only bin Laden but us and everyone in between, pictures that could just as easily be faked as anything else, pictures that would no doubt further antagonize the enemies that are not unlikely holed up somewhere right this second plotting en masse their retaliation. The potential "benefits" don't even come close to the potential "costs" for me, especially when the majority of the complaints and demands will just immediately shape-shift into something else. This has become, at least domestically, an all-out war, being fought with HMD - [red] Herrings of Mass Destruction - and we are clearly suffocating beneath the weight of them.

What I want and need, at the end of the day, is to be compassionate, conscious, heedful, engaged, ethical, and safe. I want the same for our military and intelligence personnel, and for our governing officials, and even for the opportunists and followers. This can be accomplished as effectively with the tools I have right now as with any pictures of dead men.

God's America

Is America "Christian?" According to one woman quoted in the CNN special, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door," it is and was founded on the one true God our father and son the Lord Jesus Christ. (Whew...that is a mouthful.) Of course, she's wrong.

This isn't opinion; it's written all over assorted founding documents (e.g. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution). As often as it says "In God We Trust" on anything, there seem to be an equal number of statements about escaping the religious oppression of the British, the freedom to practice as we see fit, tolerance of diverse views, etc., etc. How can that part possibly be forgotten this easily?

The arguments of the Murfreesboro mosque's opponents change with the winds, and none appear valid. First, the issue is the construction of a mosque, not the practice of Shari'a law. However, since they brought it up, every "legitimate" concern (I'm being generous) about Shari'a law is addressed in other legislation: domestic violence, kidnapping, human trafficking, terrorism, whatever. Islam IS a religion, which Joe Brandon damn well knows, despite his insistence that the negative "lawyer" stereotype is accurate. The 15,000 square feet can't be the problem when The People's Church (First Baptist, Franklin, TN) opened a campus nearly four (4) times that size in nearby Spring Hill in November.

This is nothing but hate, and it's sickening. Get out your Bill of Rights again, people. Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That's what this country was founded on, not on Christianity or any other religion, and it will not serve any of us in the long-term if you get laws passed restricting this one. Get over yourselves. We are better than this crap.

Death of an Experiment

Ultimately, the Brick House Democrats do welcome everyone. However, if we are to make any actual progress, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into the sensationalistic mire offered and apparently genuinely enjoyed by many conservatives, and particularly many who align themselves with the "Tea Party." We have more important things to do with our time. Some of us are gay and tired of being treated as second-class citizens. Some of us are straight and just not scared to death of everybody who's not. Some of us have kids who NEED to be educated so that they can hold their own when somebody tries to make them afraid of monsters that don't exist. Some of us don't have kids, or are simply no longer responsible for any, but are still invested in the future because we'll be part of it. We must hold as our compass these long-term issues, our long-term potential, but unfortunately, we also must, as responsible citizens, periodically address the aforementioned mire. We must at least keep our hand on that light switch, and flip it back on every time one of the hate-mongers runs by and swats it down. We are obligated to have that more unpleasant discussion as well, because if we do not, our long-term goals may simply disintegrate before our complacent eyes.

A conversation with devout Tea Partier who taught me that no matter how "intelligent" a person is, no matter how much he or she WANTS to be the exception, no matter how capable a person is of seeing and understanding the truth...essentially no matter how much someone squeals about how badly they want out of the barrel, if their feet are planted against the side, they're not coming out. And if you continue to pull on their outstretched hands, you'll just end up in there, too. This is where I let go:

If you're willing to lie (yes, LIE), purposely incite deep anger and misery in as many people as you can, and fixate on ANYTHING you can even distantly link to an individual against whom you have a personal grudge--to the exclusion of what would be even BETTER arguments, then your motivation is not something I'd ever be willing to support. Again, I let people tell me who they are. I don't HAVE to "make them out to be" anything, just take their word for it, not their opponents', not somebody else's, not even an endless mass of consistent media reports.

Michele Bachmann has demonstrated as clearly as she possibly can, not just with the "breast pump" circus but repeatedly throughout her tenure in government, via overwhelmingly conservative sources but ESPECIALLY since being falsely and foolishly "validated" by the Tea Party just to get butts in chairs, that her single motivating principle is to get more power for Michele Bachmann. SHE has shown (all by herself, if reviewed "critically") that she has NO respect for the truth or the bigger problem of manipulating people's emotions and "critical thought" to perceive whatever monster SHE creates for them to fear and blame.

And here we are back at the beginning. We can't even get PAST the conversation about breast pumps, because you and Michele Bachmann both blew right past what the First Lady actually said and did, just to add fuel to the make-believe fire, which consumes any possible constructive steps that may have come next. And that is NOT an accident. If you can be kept distracted by and arguing over the UNtruths, you won't notice where you're really headed. And you think THIS is EASIER?? You have no idea how wrong you are about that, and I guess won't until it's too late. It is truly tragic that as populated as human history is with instances of this exact process, found almost verbatim in at least 3 books I can see just from where I'm sitting right this second, that such an enormous group of people could be fooled into falling for it again, and yet, here we are. There are SO many smart, decent conservatives, Republicans, who even know better, who've stood up to these self-serving few, not because they're weak, but because they're the strongest of the lot, because they've bothered to LOOK UP and see what's ahead.

Critical thinking based on fiction? That's not actually a very good idea, and even if it were, "critical thinking" demands an analysis of faults and merits, which would require....facts! It also requires aim at your own side, not just the other, and does not involve a knee-jerk "well, they do it, too!" as a response. Do you really think it's more intelligent to just write off every single source of fact obtainable in the civilized, literate world (not just the "mainstream media" to which I have NEVER limited my research, detailed in my posts and yet a fact you also completely disregard).

And if it were "easier" to just look at Bachmann as a big meany, I wouldn't have bothered to look up the WI death threats. I would have just thought about it "critically," replied "well, both sides do it," pointed out how gullible it is to just blindly believe what you hear, and expected that to clear it all up.

Words, Responsibility, Hypocrisy

On January 16, 2011, in the “Communities” section of The Washington Times online, which seems somewhat deceptive, Amanda Read berated “liberal media” (and some other odds and ends that apparently made good distractions) for their insensitive and irrational criticism of Sarah Palin. If the piece is representative, I am disappointed to find another purportedly educated person delusional or simply as given to shamelessly fueling the fear-mongering bandwagon as those she seeks to defend. She criticizes criticism, mocks those who dare mock, interprets misinterpretations, judges the judges, spins the spin...all while apparently seeing her point of view as...different, smarter, right. By Read’s own report, President Obama seemed to follow the Tucson shootings with invitations to take better care of each other, while Sarah Palin took the opportunity to whine about being picked on, again pretending that she doesn’t (or forgetting she does) say about half of the ugly, negative crap she does.

Am I criticizing Amanda Read? You bet I am. Is it unfair? Let’s see...she wrote an “article” intended for public consumption, purposely sought this stage, and in doing so declared herself a credible source, a voice worth listening to, in order to manipulate people’s opinions, the heinous sin with which she is charging others. In other words, much like with Sarah Palin, it’s not only fair, but it would be downright irresponsible of me not to respond in just this fashion, and far be it from me to shirk my “individual responsibility” as an American, as directed by the late President Reagan, a man for whom I actually had great admiration and respect.

For the most part, I simply shook my head as I read the “Not Your Average Read” (conjured, no doubt, in a fit of marketing genius), but there are a few points to which I was compelled to respond as follows:

“As Loughner’s incoherent ramblings and love of conspiracy spiraled downward to senseless bloodshed, King Solomon’s warning proved true - ‘the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness’ (Ecclesiastes 10:12-13).”

So this is what we have to look forward to from Glenn Beck?

“In response to the tragedy, President Obama’s January 12th speech in Tucson was a bit better than I expected.”

What? You expected President Obama to fail? No! Really? To provide more fodder for your criticism? But you’re not part of the problem, right? Here’s the thing...on the rare occasion that I purposely listen to anything Sarah Palin says, it’s in the hope and full expectation that she will show a little more humanity, that she will have abandoned her mission of giving her audience somebody new to hate or fear every single time she opens her mouth, that just once, she’ll either say something nice, or not say anything at all. For real, I expect that; I look for it. Thank you for clearing up for me what exactly you and others like you are spending your energy looking for. It does shed some light, at least on your initial motivation, although it does further cloud how you can possibly find so much fault with whatever truly liberal journalists you could find for leaping so allegedly unfairly on Sarah Palin’s pleas of innocence. (Side note: as though this time were actually about her.)

“Why is it that some in the media find it so hard to blame the murderer alone for murder?”

Because he is not alone in the production. He alone is guilty of shooting those people. But it is not as though his craziness was a secret kept hidden until that day or as though he showed up out of the blue and killed people with his bare hands.

“‘We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.’”

Damn straight, each and every individual. Every individual who insists that the 2nd amendment guarantees his/her right to tote around a Glock like it’s a pack of gum; every individual who runs for public office (or has a cable tv reality show) and makes a platform of turning people against each other, making somebody afraid of somebody else every time she speaks, and crying when she’s called on it; every "journalist" who wants to insist on individual responsibility while disregarding both individual and collective influence.

“(By the way, Palin is now receiving an unprecedented number of death threats. Will the media tell us which group of people is to blame for that?)”

Well, then, I guess she and the president have finally found something in common. Do I smell a beer summit? Surely death threats are not only a bad thing now that Sarah Palin’s getting more of them? Surely you’re not suggesting now that there’s a correlation between rhetoric and death threats...because if there wasn’t before, it certainly would seem to undermine your position to claim that there is now just because a new target’s been added.

“But for some nonreason her words can't just mean that - nothing that Palin says can possibly be taken rationally. There must be something perverse, something apocalyptic - something potentially devastating to humanity - in every slightest gesture Palin makes.”

First of all, who exactly is it, if not Sarah Palin herself, that has worked to ensure that her every word and gesture is? She’s built a career, hell, an identity, out of her own rhetoric (or at least what’s written for her). She alone is soliciting credibility based on what she produces for the public. If Jared Loughner is to be held solely responsible for his actions (and this presumably means absent even mitigating circumstances), then surely Sarah Palin should be held equally responsible for the role in which she has begged to be cast.

Second, if you want the things you say to be “taken rationally,” you should develop the habit of saying rational things, not charging people $500 each (pure profit--news flash, people, the “Tea Party” is not a “party,” just a bunch of people shopping for political offices) to listen to her read from her hand about things she can’t talk about otherwise. I could be wrong, but it seems like if you do understand something and you can talk about it, you would. Right? And it definitely can’t be a none-of-your-beeswax thing if you’re portraying yourself as serious political (leadership) potential.

“‘Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors.’”

It is completely absurd to even try to make the case that violent metaphors have identical weight and meaning coming from both sides of the gun rights debate. If I threaten to shoot you, I will bet my ass that you’ll feel a whole lot more uncomfortable with it if I’m holding a gun than if I’m not. These are factors you cannot ignore in this conversation, at least if you hope to make a valid point to anyone but your usual audience, and if that’s all you’re aiming for, you’re just sucking up.

“As Charles Krauthammer masterfully explained:” ... “The likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann...”

Charles Krauthammer? Michele Bachmann? Really?? This is the company you offer for Sarah Palin in her defense?

Charles Krauthammer has never “masterfully” explained anything that I’ve ever heard. In fact, let’s just shut down his justification of torture right here: A. If you’re that sure that by torturing one, you’ll be able to save many, you must already have enough information to act on something. Get it? Again, if you’re that sure of what information that man can provide to you, then you should have no reason to torture him. B. It’s never okay unless it’d be okay to do it to you.

Now, Michele Bachmann??? Do you really not understand that criticism of her need have nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric or “battle imagery?” My favorite Michele Bachmann quote, from a 2009 interview with a Minnesota radio station: “And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward....” For crying out loud, President Obama is not going to put our young people into re-education camps. That is not “rhetorical,” much less harmless. That is nothing but self-serving, irresponsible pandering to the most ignorant, paranoid, conservative-conditioned people she could possibly get to listen and then, of course, be afraid enough to run out and vote for her. There is nothing mistakable, or defensible, about those words, and they are typical of her, and of Sarah Palin. Individual responsibility, indeed. Please see your own Ecclesiastes quote above.

“What would be good to see less of is thoroughly nasty and disrespectful hate spewings that don't deserve to be called rhetoric.”

Ya think??!!

“Opponents of the Tea Party and conservative leaders would do well to focus on looking for facts instead of reading into rhetoric messages that just aren't there.”

Aren’t there??? MY WIFE received a piece of mail at our home from now-Governor Bill Haslam’s campaign vowing to “protect the traditional family.” It was addressed TO HER FAMILY, not “our neighbor,” not “current occupant,” but to “The Farr Household.”

First, “protect?” Again with this need to “protect” the "traditional" family? Seriously? The only time something needs “protecting” is if it’s being threatened, if it is in danger. This is not my biased, petty, liberal little opinion; these are the meanings of words agreed upon long before I ever used them.

Second, WE -- “The Farr Household” -- are not one of the “traditional” families you’re vowing to protect. By process of elimination, we must then be one of the non-traditional families from whom the traditional families need to be protected.

How dare anyone suggest that we have read anything into that “rhetoric message” that was not there? It’s there in bold freaking print, and how dare anyone talk about individual responsibility without being either willing or able to recognize where all it’s lacking?

“Remember, a fear of subliminal conspiracy in words is part of what drove Jared Loughner insane.”

Maybe...just maybe...that’s the point.

One person was crazy and violent that morning in Tucson. One person directly caused the deaths of several innocent people and devastated the lives of so many more. But there is more than enough laziness, ignorance, arrogance, self-absorption, unaccountability, and yes, blame, to go around, a few times; and Loughner’s own responsibility does not absolve anyone else of theirs. Look around. We're all still here together.

Lies, Hate, and Reality in Tennessee (and unfortunately, beyond)

Truth and identity, public and private, are key--for BOTH sides, and, sadly, the "Belmont College Crushes Queer Soccer Coach Like Bug" situation could just as easily have been avoided by a better tending of those things by either side. Make no mistake, people, Truth will never give up in its efforts to be present in your life, through one "opportunity" after another. Belmont's official "attitude" on this point absolutely sucks, no doubt about that, regardless of the details of its "policies," but did anybody not know that this is who they ARE? As a private, religion-based institution in a state seemingly growing more prejudiced by the second, did they really have anybody fooled into thinking they'd just do the "right" thing when push came to shove? Who lied about what, and to whom?

Do not misunderstand me. I HATE this ignorance, bigotry, blatant discrimination; I hate this hate. I am sick to death of this shit, of the absolute absence of tolerance or even minimal evolution on the subject by waaayyy too many of the Tennessee population. I want it to CHANGE, so we can get on with our lives and tending to some of the REAL problems we're facing in this world. My desperation for that change is why it is so maddening to me when the opportunities we get to achieve some measure of progress are significantly compromised by none other than the unfairly judged and oppressed party themselves.

I hope the coach was fired, or that Belmont has seriously misrepresented the way it handled its end. I hope this coach actually never approached the administration to ask "permission" to talk about her "baby," because the existence of babies don't make people gay, and conversations can be had about babies, even about those babies had with same-sex partners, without any mention of "lifestyle" in legally limiting terms. The conversations needn't include declarations of gay-ness allegedly referred to by the discriminatory policies of the organization of which one may be part. Implications cannot be legislated; but the prohibition of an unprovable concept cannot be challenged if one preemptively "confesses" one's own perceived violation of the rules BY requesting permission to circumvent them. If she did not leave voluntarily, then hopefully she had executed her job more personally openly than is suggested by Belmont's reaction. Maybe then, it could be argued that any claimed "don't ask, don't tell" policy had been inconsistent at best and that forfeiture of its previous enforcement precluded its arbitrary and abrupt enforcement over an implication now. "Baby" does not equal "disclosure of homosexuality." If we are going to be forced to be this "careful," then careful is exactly what we should be, and a matching standard demanded in any argument regarding a lack of that care.

Could have been a good fight. Could have accomplished something. Unfortunately, when you sign a pre-nup before marrying someone known in the past to be a cheating, boozing wife-beater, and he cheats, boozes, and beats the hell out of you and you leave, you are going to get screwed, and you have no right to be surprised by it. Any there's not only not going to be a damn thing you can do about it, but your denial and compliance probably guarantee that the next one is going to get it worse.

Do not simply give away your power, to anybody, ever. Be yourself, even when it's hard. Be honest, even when it's hard. Be honest with yourself, before you ever have a conversation with anybody else about it. Don't expect anybody else in this world to treat you with respect when you can't manage it consistently with yourself. If you act ashamed, people will assume you have good reason to be.

If you just hold up your end, hold your position, without hiding, lying, or apologizing when you haven't done a damn thing wrong, then maybe something can be done when somebody else breaks the "rules." Damn whoever made "spin" such an art. It's no way to live, it's no way to maintain a relationship, and it's no way to run a business. Honesty and transparency are, under most circumstances, the best way to avoid the inevitable betrayals and scars that come up living in SPIN. My wife and I have both learned this lesson. Many people have, more than enough to say with a fair amount of certainty that anybody can learn it.

Damn it, I want to be wrong, completely and utterly wrong, about every aspect of this case. Please, please, please, somebody prove me wrong. You have no idea how glad I'd be. If I'm wrong, then maybe things actually change. But if I'm right, then my immediate environment, in which I live with my beloved wife and the two children we're trying like hell to raise to act better than so many of the examples they see, will certainly be even uglier tomorrow than it was yesterday.

A Matter of Liability

The part about all the uproar over the healthcare reform thing that troubles me is the confusion, the seeming surprise, that our government could possibly think they have any right to take control over such an institution. It's the same confusion and surprise that greeted new government regulation over Wall Street and the banking industry, much of which, by the way, has been thoroughly disregarded.

What part don't you get?

Is it not true that I might very well not be insured by my employer, choose not to maintain any kind of private policy (because there's no way in hell I could afford to), choose to smoke cigarettes (a fully informed decision in that I know full well the harm of which they're capable), get any number of afflictions as a direct result of that cancer, and then decide that I want to live badly enough and therefore pursue treatment enough that I readily accept any government assistance I can possibly get, and probably even feel like I deserve it? I'm not picking on smokers; it's just an example. I could use seatbelts, helmet laws, alcohol consumption (driving or not), ignored storm warnings, bad mortgages (given and received), mountain climbing, whatever.

Whose responsibility are we, if not our own? And if that is our claim, then why do we not live our lives as though we have signed a waiver releasing the government and the rest of society from any such responsibility? But we do not. We want it both ways. We want to reject interference, "meddling," by our ruling authorities until we need them. People sit in the path of the storm swearing up and down that they'll be just fine, aren't going anywhere, until the water gets past five or six feet, and then they're not only on the phone calling 911, but complaining because there's some delay (like 90-mph winds, or that same six feet of water, or all the other equally dismissive people in line to be saved ahead of them). People climb mountains in inclement weather, knowing the risks and the outright statistical likelihood that they will not live through the experience, and yet when they're a few hours late, a search party is launched, at the full expectation of everybody with any knowledge that the fool went up the mountain to begin with.

People (like me) hate being made to wear their seatbelts, because, really, whose business is it? Right? But if we have an accident, and we're ejected from the vehicle and seriously injured (assuming we live), do we tell the paramedics to just leave us there, that it's our own fault? Do we say, "I didn't want the government meddling in my life, and I knew what I was getting myself into. It just wouldn't be right to take the help now." I actually might say exactly that, but I also wear my seatbelt, even though I hate it, because I don't know that in that situation, I'd have that kind of resolve, that my principles would hold up after I'd caused myself multiple broken bones and internal injuries and was facing a certain and painful death in some roadside ditch. People continue to smoke, drink, and use drugs, at all ages, all income levels, insured or not.

Insurance costs continue to climb, we continue to smoke, and sue, and complain. We continue to blame others, refuse to fix the crisis ourselves, beg for help, and then reject the help when it's offered. We're like the families on "Super Nanny," at the beginning of the show, that immature and ignorant, that arrogant, and that helpless. And still, when Jo shows up, they usually spend the first quarter of the show arguing with her, saying they "caaaann't," trying to get around the rules they begged somebody to come set for them.

Why in the hell would you not be subject to regulation by somebody who gave you a loan? Why in the hell would whoever's funding your escapades not get in a say in whether or not you should continue having them in the same manner? When your parents are paying for all your needs, you're supposed to follow their rules. Why would it be different when the federal government is the parent, and, say, Merrill Lynch is the child? It's actually not any different at all.

This country was founded on the concept that certain "inalienable" rights are due every human being, and that it was, at least in part, the function of the federal government to guarantee these rights for us. Life, liberty, property. Life, in modern terms, equals healthcare, shelter, elderly care. This is what you demanded from the beginning. This is what you demand every time you're in a pinch. This is what you get as a very natural consequence for the irresponsible way you live.

What part don't you get?

Human Rights - Thoughts on Torture

Anything you do could be the last thing you do. Anything you do implies permission to have the same thing done to you should someone think it equally necessary. Torture, in the most basic sense, is never just, in a way I can’t say I think war is never just. I can justify (at least to myself) a war in defense of someone clearly and openly attacked by someone else. The only two reasons you could ever have to torture somebody would be suspicion and retaliation. As human beings, we’re supposed to be above basic retaliation, and if responsive action is “required,” as human beings, we’re supposed to be able to come up with something...well, humane. As far as suspicion, just never a good thing, at least for me, to act on. If somebody has something to tell, great. What if there really is nothing else to tell? I could be wrong.

There are already obviously completely subjective and useless restrictions and regulations in place, which means, there are no and can be no useful restrictions or regulations over torture. When torture is “justified,” it’s always by assumptions, conjecture, speculation, suspicion, never a guarantee. When you have a guarantee, you don’t need to torture anybody. It reminded me what I said earlier about genocide, that if it’s not okay across the street, it’s not okay across the ocean. In the most basic sense, if it’s not okay to torture somebody who turns out to be innocent, then it can’t be okay to torture anybody. Period. Why, if we had a draft, would we exclude women? If you can make a case for preserving the life and well-being of a woman, for any reason, why in the hell would that not be a case for preserving the life and well-being of anybody? Is a life of inherent value or is it not??

Nobody on this earth has the wisdom, experience, or anything else they'd need to be able to legitimately make the call on which life is worth more or less than others. I only know what's important to me, what's in my experience; you only know what's important to you. There are other ways to live, to respond, to fight. We are highly evolved creatures, and as such, we have a responsibility to make the effort to learn those other ways.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a part of me, not even that small a part sometimes, the fearful part, that wants to torture the crap out of anybody who might be sitting on some information we could use to avoid another 9/11 or anything of that ilk. But what if they don’t have it? What if they lie just to get you to stop? What if whatever information they have is irrelevant, can’t be used to stop the attack anyway? If somebody kidnapped, say, my mother, and had her rigged up in some sort of situation where she would die if not found by a certain time, and the person were caught but wouldn’t tell where she was, I can’t say with any certainty that I wouldn’t do really unspeakable things to that person to get them to tell me. I have very human limits to my own sanity and my own self-control. But I would be wrong. Even though I might engage in it myself under only such unimaginably severe circumstances, it would not be just, by any argument; and I would be wrong, and would expect to be punished for my actions. There’s stuff where any "grey area" is just too dangerous, and this is one of them. The consequences are too great.

You know how if the air is really dry, and somebody walks up to you and reaches out to touch your arm or something, and you get a shock? If they reach out again, don’t you flinch, don’t you anticipate the feeling and recoil from it, even just the tiniest bit, because it was a surprise and maybe genuinely hurt a little, and it’s right there, fresh in your mind? I cannot comprehend having all of my senses abused so severely, repeatedly, possibly for years, and having a shred of mental/emotional function left in me, if physical.

So many people, political prisoners, clear victims, are tortured in ways that everybody universally agrees are unjust, and if we’re to have recourse against that, we can’t do it to anybody else, because actions really are all that matter; their “reasons” are always going to be as “good” as ours, so the argument has to come from somewhere else.

Tennessee Gun Permits and Thomas Hobbes

This gun business has gone far enough. I’ve been waiting for common sense to kick in, or for someone with more time and energy to express more vigorous opposition, but my patience has been officially exhausted.

The infamous legislative bill arming the general public has never been about anything but money. If it were genuinely about anybody’s rights, the capitol would not be excluded from the growing list of gun-tolerant properties. In fact, I dare say that if it had anything whatsoever to do with the Constitution, any such committed and idealistic legislators would be fighting for the chance to be the first to share space with the newly armed. Why isn’t that the case? It’s something of a “health risk,” plain and simple, and they all know it.

Legislators have shown repeated disregard not only for Tennessee voters’ opinions, but potentially for our lives and those of our families and children. Many have reportedly solicited contributions directly from pro-gun groups and individuals since this circus began. What that means, essentially, is that this legislation was a sale, one big, greedy business decision, the direct investment of Tennesseans’ safety and well-being in a very lucrative interest, possibly to replace revenues lost due to the weakening of the tobacco lobby or the Bible belt disadvantage of the alcohol lobby.

How much money can possibly be involved for elected officials to threaten their constituents (their supposed livelihoods) with lawsuits for not complying with legislation that was unwanted by so many to begin with? Isn’t anybody curious?

That’s just the stuff that should bother our heads. As for our hearts....

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes proposed the theory of a “social contract” voluntarily, but necessarily, adhered to by members of a society in order to avoid giving their existence over to chaos. In other words, if you don’t want everybody else doing whatever they please, especially in public, then you agree not to either.

If I want to carry a gun, what is the worst that can happen if it’s not "allowed," and I can pretty safely assume that most, if not all, the people in the room with me are unarmed as well? If I do not want a gun anywhere near me, what’s the worst that can happen when it’s very possible that a great number of the people in the room with me are armed? The main reason I’ve heard given by the pro-carry people (besides “it’s my RIGHT, damn it”) is that if the bad guys are going to have guns, they want them, too. Following that logic, the more people there are who carry guns, the more people there are going to be who didn’t before but want to now. Statistically, the more people who adopt the practice, the better the chance that it was an impulse, that they’ve had minimal gun education or experience, that they’re more afraid, their judgment not as sharp, and so on.

I support, albeit sometimes with great reservation, the second amendment. I don’t care if people own guns and in fact agree wholeheartedly that everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property. I simply think that once that desire for protection leaves an environment where my individual needs are quite reasonably the only priority (my home, my vehicle) and spreads out into an environment where many individuals’ needs must be balanced (our workplace, our restaurants, our parks, our movie theatres, our churches, or your workplace, your garage sale, etc.), and my need is one that, under certain circumstances, has the proven potential to do direct and grievous harm to others, then I should be willing to lay down my need, to maintain order in the society in which I have chosen to be a part.

We actually have, in keeping with that same amendment, a militia formed for our defense—they’re called police officers. We could take care of ourselves, in whatever manner we find most reassuring, in our own homes and even in our cars and continue to trust our public protection to the properly trained, equipped, and legally informed force we already have in place. Even given the exceptions committed by the evil and desperate, I would prefer that to being at the mercy of what are potentially nothing more than a bunch of yahoos armed with guns and self-righteous ignorance.

The HPV Racket

If drug companies like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline can get their HPV vaccines mandated by the states, or even individual school systems, they sell tons more of it. Go to opensecrets.org, search for Merck (ahead of GSK in the HPV vaccine race) as an organization, and look at how much money they've contributed to campaigns, already almost a half million by their PAC for just the 2010 election cycle--meaning only congressional candidates! Communicate more with your legislators!! (AND your children-girls and boys!) Their mission is obviously to buy a government "contract" to make mass profits off of a drug/disease people know less about and will be less resistant to than, say, an AIDS vaccine (AIDS being 100% fatal). Now go to CDC.gov and read about HPV. In 90% of cases, the body clears it; there are several other cancers more frequently observed resulting from HPV than cervical cancer; the vaccines do not prevent ALL types of HPV (and don't prevent HIV at all); smoking is also a contributor; PAP tests will catch most precancers; and abstinence prevents all STDs 100%. The latter is just the better known and therefore more feared.

It is mostly, if not entirely, propaganda for profit. Other resources: CDC.gov for the facts about HPV, related cancers (and worse diseases), & their causes, preventions, and treatments; followthemoney.org for trails between contributions and state-level legislators; attachmentparenting.org for advice on staying really connected to your kids, because that is the most important element here.
Do not be sheep; the two most effective ways to help your children are to stay CONNECTED as parents...and QUESTION EVERYTHING!!

As far as Merck’s “donation” of $500 million to other high-risk countries...
There are about 10 million girls age 10-14 in the U.S. This vaccine runs upwards of $300 per series. That's $3 BILLION potential profit in the U.S. alone, especially if they can bribe state and federal legislators (the actual function of most non-individual campaign contributions, not an exaggeration-see opensecrets.org, search for Merck and do the math yourselves) into mandating it, which would also ultimately save them millions in advertising. $500 million is a pretty affordable investment/gimmick when you stand to make 6x that in this country alone.

A Sinking Ship

You really can't outrun the truth. For years now, the conservative, mostly Republican, religious right anti-gay advocates have been raising seven different kinds of endless hell (ironically) about gays, gays in relationships, gays raising children, gays and their alleged promiscuity and deviance, gays and their threat to "traditional" marriages and families and education and the world at large. Meanwhile, the scandals have been piling up, most of the subjects having been vocal proponents of and personally fueling, at some time and in some aspect, the anti-gay movement, under one or a combination of its aforementioned themes. Hmmmm....(scratching head, brow furrowed)

It is a fact - not my opinion, not simply conjecture, but fact - that frequently the people who make the most noise have the most to hide. It's even a tactic of war: cause an enormous explosion on one side of the field (in this case, the right) so nobody notices all the sneaking around. Clearly, these people are skilled at the effective employment of this tactic, but so many have fallen - Mark Sanford, Paul Stanley, John Ensign, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard.... There are plenty who have known the truth all along and not been sucked into their loud and colorful displays, but others have doubted, and many swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I would ask of the latter: Do you still believe it? And if so, why? Seriously, how? Aren't you almost beginning to perceive the depth and volume of the declared convictions even as an indicator of the extent of the "deeply convicted's" own sins? Don't you wonder why, if the bucket they sold to you was so solid and so impenetrable, so fault-less, you've found yourself back at the house with no water and a big, wet trail leading all the way back to the well?

To the true deviants, the cowards and liars whose main motivation is more and more clearly simply to get away with their own transgressions against all of the "institutions" they've claimed to hold so dear, I would say: Go ahead and scream with all the voice you have left. You must be so afraid, and I pity you.

Whose "Best Judgment" is Best?

I've been thinking about the electoral college, the will of "the People," the out-of-control Tennessee legislature shoving guns down all of our throats, and the fact that, for all the bitching and moaning, the voters are the ones who put them there. Does anybody really not understand that, by the way? Why in the name of time do we need TERM LIMITS when they only get to stay if WE re-elect them? How far ahead of the horse can we possibly put the cart?! Good grief, people! This is not rocket science! Would we want to limit the terms of people we thought were doing a great job? Because we have had, all along, the power to "limit the terms" of those we perceive to be making it worse, and we simply refuse to use it.

Voters often complain of feeling like elected officials are too far removed from “real life." That’s absolutely true; voters do have valid reason to feel like that, but who do they think elected the people of whom they have this perception? They didn’t just wander into the offices off the streets. And how is it that “the people” can have this view and the reelection rate of incumbents be so high, like in the U.S. House (usually >95%)?

We cannot (reasonably) hand somebody a solid gold, indestructible “mandate,” specifically to remove themselves from what you call “real life” and go make your decisions for you, keep reaffirming it for them, sometimes for decades, and simultaneously criticize them for doing it. And I’ve actually seen quite a few candidates over the years who were exactly what people keep saying they want, somebody from their own block, or could be, who’s maybe worked as a teacher or a bus driver or something, highly intelligent, knows exactly where to start to really turn some things around. Voters not only do not vote for those people, the people they claim to be their model legislators, in theory; they crucify them. “The people,” media, voters, other politicians, everybody, not only refuse to elect such candidates but mock them endlessly and mercilessly, for daring to even look at public office, for being nothing and nobody, even though nothing and nobody was the order they put in the day before.

Ben Franklin once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Ben Franklin was a very smart man. I wonder if anybody would vote for him today.

With all of this in mind, frankly, I’m not sure I want to give any more power to “the people.” I don’t know that they can be responsible with it. And I hate that, too, that we can’t all be trusted to focus on the greater good, or, taking the subjective quality of "good" out of the equation, to support equality and fairness according to our guiding legal principles and not succumb to our whims and prejudices and such. I'm hoping we get better at the accountability thing, but in the meantime, I don't mind it being tempered with some good, clean constitutional wisdom, even if it means that I don't get everything I want all the time either (keeping the gun-funded Tennessee lawmakers out of the process as much as possible).

We have free speech, and we have the right to elect our leaders, pray to whomever we want (or not), stand in the street and say the president sucks... How bad can it really be, and if it is, how can it not have a whole lot to do with us?

I would like to see the presidential electoral process changed. After we all change our minds and get ourselves straightened out and either elect some of “us” or stop whining about who has the jobs now, we can call some sort of special national constitutional convention and develop a new electoral system that allows for more competition, credits all Americans’ opinions equally (and dismisses them equally on some points), reins in the parties and closes loopholes in campaign finance regulation as a bonus, and write an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that details all of it, specifically enumerating and prohibiting powers as needed. That’d be fun.

Tennessee Taxes

Tennessee collects state income tax on dividends and interest and all sorts of taxes on businesses, and of course, a huge chunk of its revenue comes from sales tax and license fees. It has one of the lower gas and cigarette taxes and pretty low property taxes, too. According to the US Census, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia are the only states with a lower median income than Tennessee, 2006-2007. The median income here during that time was $41,521. That’s not a lot of money. That means people in Tennessee are not rich, as a population. (Remember that’s only the median because half of the households make less.)

The problem with that is all the complaining about things like state healthcare, college tuition, and the like. Tennessee pays a lot in state employee wages and insurance benefits, and a ton on public welfare, one of their higher expenditures. To have that as a high expenditure in a state with one of the lowest median incomes, one of the highest sales taxes, and such a blindly immovable opposition to a state income tax doesn’t make a bit of sense. To have as a main revenue source something as dependent on the general state of the economy (or perception of it) as sales tax doesn’t make a bit of sense either. To live in a state with such close access to other states with lower sales taxes, when the people with the money can easily drive there to make large purchases (especially when the biggest Tennessee cities lack some really major, cool, high-priced stores you can find as close as Atlanta) doesn’t make a bit of sense. The people without the money, meanwhile, have to spend a huge chunk of their meager incomes on tax on food, clothing, and other general necessities, can’t afford to do enough shopping to really boost the revenue, and apparently frequently enough end up the recipients of the public welfare programs funded by what revenues the state does make.

It’s easy to see the block to a state income tax. The people with the influence, the people who vote, basically, are the people with the money, who benefit the most by not having that tax and having so much control over their vulnerability to the other taxes. The people without the money are trapped here, make paltry little money, have to spend so much of it to survive, are typically less educated, less motivated, etc, don’t vote in as great numbers, therefore have little influence and are guaranteed to never have any. There is a tall, wide, and solid wall here between the haves and have-nots, and the people on the have side like it that way, until they want to bitch about roads and schools and other things they don’t realize they’re costing resources.

I hate the sales tax, and I like balance, so I personally would like to see instituted a state income tax. The 2007 federal tax on that median $41,521 (taxable income, not even counting deductions and exemptions, filing single) was only $6725. That’s not exactly a killer. On the have-not side, say with a $20,000 taxable income, it’s only about $2700. No state income tax sounds great until you do have to come up with college tuition; make a $1000 repair to your car that costs $1100; there’s a serious recession when nobody shops and your state still has to pay for stuff like hospitals and welfare and emergencies and education; or all the roads need work and they raise the gas tax, especially when gas is already $3 or $4 a gallon. Chew on it.