Santa stranger danger

Oh dear. I found a post that equated putting a reluctant child in Santa's lap to abuse. I assume that the person writing it has never been abused to make such a ridiculous claim.

What's that Ben Franklin quote?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

I've been scanning the headlines about the shooting at the theatre in Aurora, CO, today and was horrified* when I came across this lady's quote:

“Americans have yet to understand the threats to their safety, and regard security as an intrusion into their privacy,” says Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, a New York-based research group.

“In Israel,” she says via e-mail, “well-trained security personnel monitor the entrance to every public building, even supermarkets, and public awareness has stopped many terror attacks and saved many lives.”

Here's my response to that:

1. I understand the threats and accept that those threats are part of the risk associated with living in a free country.
2. Security measures are an intrusion into my privacy. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any warrant has to come from a judge and be supported by probable cause. It's part of due process. We should tread lightly when stomping all over the Constitution under the guise of making us "safer".
3. If I wanted to live in Israel, where every public entrance is monitored, I would move there. 
4. You can obtain public awareness without monitoring the movements of every person entering a public building.†
5. But most importantly, you cannot prevent every tragedy. I do not blame the theatre for this act of violence. I do not blame the crowd for not noticing there was a person wanting to do harm. I do not blame Hollywood for making a Batman film. It was awful. It happened. There will be future tragedies. We must not let our fear override our common sense.

*I was more horrified about the shooting.

†How many well-trained personnel would it take to monitor every public building in the United States?

Tough love

Trending right now is a video of a dad who, after finding a curse-laden filled complaint his daughter tried to post privately on Facebook, videotaped an eight minute rebuttal that ends with him taking out his gun and shooting his daughter's laptop eight (nine?) times. First, it should be noted that the clip is currently being investigated for authenticity. (Did his daughter post this complaint to Facebook? Does this guy even have a daughter? etc.)

As someone who grew up with guns in the house, I don't find this guy's actions threatening. Yes, it is a gun, but he could have just as easily used a sledgehammer or his car to destroy her laptop. Merely having a gun doesn't mean you're capable of killing a family member. If it did, I'm not sure my siblings and I would be here.

The dad in the video wanted to make a statement and I don't feel for a second that the statement was that he'd use his gun against his daughter. From the dad's view, the daughter had been previously warned about such posts. That she did it again on what she thought was the sly proves their initial efforts to reign in the behavior were unsuccessful. Was it a little extreme? Absolutely. But what if the guy is dealing with a hormonal teenager in the midst of a rebellious streak? It sounds to me that he is actually a caring parent. He wants her to understand how hard they work to make her life easy. He is monitoring her Internet activity. He is responsive when he sees behavior he thinks is unacceptable. Aren't these things we want parents to do? I can't say I'd ever shot Hen's computer - it's not the Macbook's fault - but I could certainly see Hen losing his computer privileges if he continued to post objectionable items after being told not to.

What do you think, gentle reader?

I support Planned Parenthood

I am extremely happy the decision by the Komen Foundation to pull funding from Planned Parenthood was reversed. Hopefully, they will think twice before doing something so ridiculously stupid in the future. I think Representative Michael M. Honda said it best, "The fact that the Komen Foundation is using this investigation as the basis for its decision is distressing." Indeed, sir. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to go online and immediately donate to Planned Parenthood to show my support. I'm still snickering over the claim from the Komen folks that the initial reactions they received were positive. Their own staff members were resigning in protest.

He's a 14 Percenter!

"The returns show Romney paid a smaller proportion of his income in tax than most Americans because his income is from investments from his $200m-plus fortune, which attract a lower rate than earned income.

In 2010, Romney earned more than $21m and paid $3m in tax, a rate of less than 14%. He expects to pay $3.2m in taxes on his 2011 income, a rate of 15.4%."

Hat tip: The Guardian 

"The former Massachusetts governor shelled out approximately $3 million in federal income taxes on $21.7 million in income that year.

Because Romney gave about $3 million to charity — about half of which went to the Mormon Church — his tax rate was lowered to a meager 14%.

Romney hasn't drawn a real salary in years, and the numbers confirm what most analysts believed: The bulk of his income comes from investment gains.

Because capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate — 15% — than the levy on the salaries of the wealthiest Americans — 35% — Romney has an annual income in the top 1% of Americans paired with a relatively low tax rate."

Hat tip: The New York Daily News

"Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments."

Hat tip: The Huffington Post

Therein lies the problem - WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY INCOME IS DEFINED. You should no longer get a preferred tax rate because you invest. 

Listen at NPR for a quick overview of the numbers. Also, did you realize Gingrich is calling for a 15% flat tax rate and he wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains. This would mean Romney would pay almost nothing at all in taxes. Holy fuck.

The gall of some people

Again, I know I should not read the Religious Clause blog because all I do is go ape when I read something I think is completely ridiculous, like one of the latest posts in which a woman convicted of embezzlement asked that 10% of her monthly pay be excluded from garnishment because she wants to continue to tithe to her church.

Um.

Wait.

You embezzled funds from your employer. Is that something a devout religious person does? Perhaps she needs to read a little more of the good book. I'm fairly confident stealing from your employer is a no no. It's not as if she took a loaf of bread to feed her starving children - she stole money, and a lot of it. There is a $1.86 million dollar balance on her restitution order. Calculating average attorney's fees and the like, that puts her haul at just over $1 million.

Living in poverty

Dang. The morning greeted me with this over at the NY Times:

One in Five New York City Residents Living in Poverty

My knee-jerk reaction is that there are still folks - middle class, educated, conservative - who don't see this as a sign that the income inequality we are experiencing right now, the joblessness/underemployment and the weak economy are hurting those most vulnerable. Those people are going to continue to believe that the impoverished just aren't working hard enough, they aren't making the best financial decisions*, and they are busy using luxury items like refrigerators. Where is the compassion? Why aren't we doing more to help?

*The best financial decision appears to be to make enough money not classified as income to qualify for that spiffy lower tax rate the super rich get.

Wonky brain synapses

Boy howdy, do I ever need to vent. Our t.v. setup is such that I don't understand it. When it does work, I have no idea [really] what I've done to get it to work. And when it doesn't, I don't have a clue what to try in order to troubleshoot. This needs to change, and I need to write about the need for change here instead of blasting my husband with bitches and moans the second he walks in the door from his ski vacation. Because, this afternoon after having Hen on my own since Wednesday, Bean asked if we could watch a movie and have popcorn and instead of watching it from our new couch on the 40" screen of our nearly new t.v., we're forced to watch it on the 12" screen of my laptop. All because my brain synapses are wonky and I can't figure out our %$#&^@!* t.v.

Liberty and on the job expectations

You have a prescription, you go to a pharmacy, you walk out with your medication. That is the way Washington currently operates. Under current rules, an individual pharmacist can refuse due to conscientious objections, but the pharmacies themselves must fill the prescription. (At least, that was how they were supposed to operate, a judge issued an injunction but that's neither here nor there.) Last month, this compromise that was worked out in 2007 came under attack. In an attempt to reach a settlement, the Board of Pharmacy has drafted a new proposal allowing for "facilitated referrals" for pharmacists and pharmacies unwilling to stock or dispense prescribed medications for any reason. This suit is regarding Plan B, the emergency contraception (EC), but if the board adopts this new rule it will have implications beyond women's access to such medication. A self-righteous pharmacist could refuse to sell birth control to an unmarried woman or could stop someone from getting the AIDS cocktail. Amy Luftig, Planned Parenthood's Network of Washington deputy director of public policy, said this: "Pharmacists should not be able to elevate their personal beliefs over the needs of the patient," which is surprisingly similar to what I said back in 2006 when Darr posted this after one particularly heated argument we had on the subject. For the record, I said: "I draw the line when the pharmacist's moral objections are given the authority to block me from receiving the treatment my doctor and I have decided upon. It is the pharmacist's job to dispense medication, not to judge the prescription with his/her own moral compass and only dispense the medications that pass his/her moral test." While employers are required to take reasonable steps to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, federal and state laws allow for employers to create a "bona fide occupational qualification," for employees. The National Women's Law Center has The Pharmacy Refusal Project should you feel inclined to read more on the subject. At this point I'm thinking we should make all forms of birth control, including EC, available over-the-counter and strip pharmacists completely out of the equation. Although, if you did that then the cashier might be able to object. Argh. The madness never ends.

Is this a disturbing trend or what? A bus driver sues after being fired for refusing to take women to Planned Parenthood. WTF? The driver was "concerned that he might be transporting a client to undergo an abortion." He knew the specific drop-off location because the bus line offers requested pickup for residents of rural areas. First, it should be noted that Planned Parenthood offers a host of other services unrelated to abortion. Second, the driver did not know what they were going to Planned Parenthood for, he made an assumption. Third, I want to know if the driver can be charged with kidnapping for refusing to let the women off the bus at their chosen destination if he kept them on the bus one millisecond longer than they would have been had they gotten off at the bus at their desired location.

Pet peeve #298

Duplicate mailings.

Really, companies, really? You can't buy software that cross references the people on your mailing list with their addresses to determine when multiple mailings are being sent to the same address? It's not enough that you're doing your best to destroy our planet by producing massive quantities of printed materials that don't garner you any business from me, you then send copies of the same thing to three different people - Mr. D. G., Mrs. C. G., and my personal favorite, Current Resident - at the same household. Or maybe you think that the onus is on me to recycle the extra copies I receive. So now, if that second or third copy of the same dang catalog hits the trash instead of the recycling bin, I'm the one responsible for global warming? Well, screw you, companies.

Paying their share

David Tepper - $4 billion ($4,000,000,000.00)

John Paulson - $2.3 billion ($2,300,000,000.00)

Kenneth Griffin - $900 million ($900,000,000.00)

Following math uses Tepper's income:

$600,000,000 tax - 15% (the above folks are currently paying)

$1,400,000,000 tax - 35% (at rate I pay)

$800,000,000 - net loss to country

Projected health care costs = (approx.) $1 trillion over next ten years

Find 100 of these gentlemen currently taking advantage of the 15% tax rate, get them to pay the 35% rate the rest of the "rich" folks pay, and you have health care paid for for THE NEXT DECADE.*

*I realize, of course, that this math is a bit fuzzy, but as Darr commented after making the calculations "things don't really work out that way in real life but it just goes to show the awesome power of some people's wealth."

Take our country back from whom?

This op-ed piece by Charles Blow made me guffaw out loud when I got to this part:

"Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill's most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It's enough to make a good old boy go crazy."

I understand frustration because I felt that emotion often during G.W. Bush's time in office. I'm glad that for a bit, I get a reprieve and can enjoy the things that are to come out of this administration, like health care for all (or at least way more people than previously covered). Say all you want about how the new system is likely to fail and we won't actually achieve universal health care. I'll respond with a hearty, let's at least give it a chance. Because up until this point, the insurance companies have been actively working against Americans, many of whom learned once sick their coverage wasn't going to help and millions who were left out of the insurance loop altogether.

I think of Henry when I think of insurance. And I think of how, if Darren had changed jobs or (Gods forbid) been laid off, Henry would not have been able to obtain insurance because of his preexisting condition. And he's two. I'm convinced that our system needs to go the way of other industrialized nations. Britain's system sounds good. Let's try that and if, in ten or twenty years, folks hate having access to health care, well then we can reassess and consider allowing the insurance companies with financial stakes in the outcomes make our medical decisions for us.
For a look at Britain's system, click here.

As a means to torture myself

I started following the Religion Clause blog, which basically means every time I read it I find myself muttering unintelligible sentence fragments while pulling out strands of my hair and spitting small sprays of saliva through my clenched teeth*. On the rare occasion, however, I come across a golden nugget of wisdom that just might help me later on in life and it is all worth it. Yesterday was such a day as I learned that if, when speaking to a police officer in Pennsylvania, I get riled up and curse, using God in my expletive laced rants is protected speech. The police in PA, apparently too often, have been using terroristic threats, harassment, and disorderly conduct statutes to unlawfully prosecute this protected speech. For instance, I call a cop a G$^ d&!* a-hole and tell him God's going to punish him for this great injustice that has just taken place (perhaps a parking ticket was issued?). And instead of letting it slide, the cop charges me with crimes of Terroristic Threats and Harassment. Only this speech isn't a threat but rather "protected religious speech identifying God's righteousness and willingness to punish". Awesome. (This is called a persuasive primary authority so it could be used in Oregon to help convince a judge to rule in a similar way, in case you're wondering.)

*Kenneth Copeland Ministries challenged the denial of a tax exemption for a $3.6 million jet owned by the evangelical religious group. They weren't denied because it's ridiculous that a church gets to not only have but not pay taxes on a $3.6 million dollar jet but because they took issue with the county's requirement when applying for such an exemption to include the names, positions, and salaries of the organization's employees. ARGH.

Pet peeve #229

People who find "clever" ways to spell regular names. For example, Madison becomes <please wait while Crazy Spelling Generator (CSG) processes your request> Madysin.

Madysin.

Really? Really?

I swear, that makes me want to shoot myself in the head. And if I survive that, I'll then go and hunt down those parents and shoot them in the head.* Odds are I'd just be beating poor Madysin to the punch.

*This, of course, is a joke. But because there are people who might come upon this blog, read it, and think me a serious threat I have to add this stupid disclaimer that states it is intended as a joke. Perhaps a bad joke. Maybe a joke that isn't really all that funny, particularly if you are someone who lost your parents when they were both shot in the head, but nonetheless a bad, not funny joke I have every right to make.

Preserve and protect, eh?

Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, is quoted as saying the following in regards to the restrictive abortion amendment:

"It is the duty of the government to preserve and protect human life."

And I read this and I think to myself, really? Really? Because as she's saying this, she's busy voting against giving all (or nearly all) Americans access to health care. Doesn't giving people access to health care go a long way to preserving and protecting human life?

Whatever.

I'm in a mood. I'm sitting here with a glass of wine, and I'm in a mood. The kind where I'd like to pick a fight. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if it means that me and everyone else has access to coverage. (When I use the word access, I'm not talking about the ability to drive to the nearest E.R. I'm talking about the ability to see a doctor as needed to get treatment without such visits bringing about financial ruin.) Here's what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't use my own moral compass to decide the procedures everyone else in the country should or shouldn't have. You don't want an abortion? Don't get one.

My math and the F-22 Raptor fighter jets

The economy sucks. So I can understand our knee-jerk reaction at the prospect of losing more jobs. Do whatever must be done to save the jobs. But wtf, America? It is estimated to cost AT LEAST $140 million to make these jets. Thousands of jobs would be lost if we were to cut these jets from the Defense's budget. The Air Force is currently asking the administration to sign off on the production of 60 more planes over the next three years. 

60 x $140,000,000 = $8,400,000,000

That's a whole lot of money.

Let's look at the potential job losses. The reports I found said cutting funding for these planes would cost "thousands of jobs" (not hundreds of thousands or millions - still a pretty varied field, there's a huge difference between 1,000 and 90,000).

So, for the sake of this post, we'll crunch a variety of numbers to see how much it'll cost us to keep those jobs building planes Obama referred to as "Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use" in his most recent address. 

To keep 1000 jobs building 60 planes at a minimum estimated cost of $8,400,000,000 = $8,400,000.

To keep 10,000 jobs = $840,000.

To keep 90,000 jobs = $93,333.

My point? My point is this - many apologies to my dear husband who was forced to listen to my tirade in the car on the way to work this morning - why not take a miniscule teeny tiny portion of that money and give it to the people who would have otherwise been employed had we gone forward with the building of those jets? You could give folks options. They could get generous severance packages or we could offer them scholarships to attend trade school or college or even money to help families relocate in the event their skill set could be utilized on some other governmental project (e.g., green energy projects like the one (I believe) California just signed up to do). That makes a helluva lot more sense than creating jets we don't need. Nobody likes the idea of handing over taxpayer money to folks without getting some immediate return on investment. But it seems worse to give tremendous sums of taxpayer money to hire companies to produce items we don't need.

My IM rant

Me: I'd like to know why we have the stupid $#^@ &#^hole mother scratcher landscape people using a #^@&@* @#$-master leaf blower when the ARE CURRENTLY NO #^@&@ **!HOLE LEAVES ON THE #&^&@#& GROUND.