Court challenges of i26 in Mississippi

The full text of i26 is :

SUMMARY: Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.

Entire amendment :

“Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi:
SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ:
Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

The petition can be found here.

The first issue the initiative will run into - if passed - will be a Mississippi Constitution problem.  I've quoted the pertinent sections :

ARTICLE 3

 BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 5.        Government originating in the people.

SECTION 273.
(1) Amendments to this Constitution may be proposed by the Legislature or by initiative of the people.

(5) The initiative process shall not be used:

  (a) For the proposal, modification or repeal of any portion of the Bill of Rights of this Constitution;

We can see that Section 1 Article 3 is the "Bill of Rights." We can also see that the initiative process shall not be used to modify the Bill of Rights.  Looking at the amendment text, initiative 26 is constitutionally illegal.

What does this mean?  The first taxpayer funded court challenge will be based on this legal conflict. 26 can not stand because it is illegal to use the ballot initiative process to alter the Bill of Rights.  There will be no basis for further court challenges that the authors of this amendment seek.  It will be struck down based on ballot initiative law rather than anything to do with abortion.

Lets say that the level of corruption in the Mississippi Court System is high enough that a judge would totally ignore our constitution and let the ballot initiative stand and go into effect. What next?

The next issue is that Federal Law supersedes State Law.  i26 will not outlaw abortion because the Roe vs. Wade decision protects a woman's right to medical privacy.  In other words, the initiative will not achieve the goal of the authors - it will not, can not, outlaw abortion.  This is the conflict that the authors are seeking to get to.  They want Mississippi taxpayers to fund their challenges to federal law.

So, if the amendment can not actually outlaw abortion without the expensive court challenges, what can it actually do?

• Outlaw Birth Control methods that may cause the fertilized egg to be unable to implant. ie, most of them.  Pending, of course, expensive court cases.
• Reduce or Eliminate In Vitro Fertilization procedures. I believe the wording of the proposed amendment actually targets IVF.
• Encourage the investigation and prosecution of women who have miscarriages.
• Prevent treatment for ectopic pregnancies or other serious issues.

AMENDMENT :
The Mississippi Supreme Court refused to rule in a suit brought by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood to block the initiative from being on the ballot.  This judgment said that a court could not get involved until the initiative passed.

"We cannot invade the territory of the legislature or the electorate to review the substantive validity of a proposed initiative, and thereby, we will honor the maxim embodied in the constitutional mandate of separation of powers," said Justice Randy Pierce for the court.
He said any challenges to the constitutionality of such statutes can come only after they are enacted or approved by voters. (source)

While I think that ruling was stupid, the courts were technically correct.  The corruption that allowed the initiative on the ballot was that of Delbert Hoseman as the Secretary of State.  He should have not allowed it due to the restrictions that it violates. Unfortunately, there is no challenger for his position.

The Problem with Drug Testing for Welfare

I don't know if I've blogged about this before, but when Florida passed it's drug testing requirement to receive welfare, I said it was a really, really bad idea.  Why? It will cost more than it saves and it lines the pockets of drug testing companies. (that Rick Scott, the Governor who pushed this through, had ownership or interest in - so he profits from it!)

So, was I right?

policy makers in three dozen states have proposed drug testing for people receiving benefits like welfare, unemployment assistance, job training and food stamps.

In 2011, Florida succeeded in passing legislation requiring the drug testing of welfare applicants at the urging of its Governor Rick Scott, who rode to office on a wave of Tea Party support. The roughly 113,000 Florida welfare recipients must pay for their own drug test. People who fail the test become ineligible for a year. A second failed test makes them ineligible for three years.

Only about 2 percent of Florida’s welfare applicants are failing the test, according to Florida’s Department of Children and Families. After adding up the savings derived from not paying welfare to this 2 percent and subtracting the cost of testing 100 percent of the applicants the Tampa Tribune concluded that Florida may save “up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year. 

The law has only been in effect for three months. So far, if you don't count the extra staff and resources to do the testing and assume that all 2% of the failed would have collected assistance for a full year (unlikely), the savings are between $40 and $60 thousand a year. Another 2% don't complete the application process - probably because they couldn't come up with the $30 to pay for the test or they spent it on food for their family or maybe got a job before they finished the process.  So the total savings could be as high as $98,000 per year - unlikely assumptions being used - but may be a lot less or even wind up costing the state taxpayers money.

When you include any costs associated with trying to take away the children of those who failed the test, it could be much more expensive.

So, it seems to be, perhaps, a bit beneficial to punish 2% of a population.  Actually, it is punishing all welfare recipients - just for being poor or down on their luck. But lets look at that 2%.

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

By a sizable margin (6%), less people on welfare use drugs than the general population of Florida. I wonder why? Here is a clue - they can't friggin afford drugs!!  They are broke and need assistance to get food! When it is food or drugs, most choose food... or they choose drugs and then die. Most of the people on welfare are not lazy, not drug addicts and not 'on the dole' for more than 14 months.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

What, then, is my summary opinion of drug testing for welfare recipients? It is a mean-spirited, costly, hateful, wasteful attack on the poorest of us that is being used and promoted in order to distract the 99% from the machinations of the top 1% who are actually causing fiscal problems.

Two Fliers about Mississippi 26 "Personhood"

On November 8th, 2011 in the General Election for Mississippi, there will be three Ballot Initiatives to vote on. 26 - to redefine "person" in our constitution, 27 - to require voter ID (ie disenfranchise voters) and 31 - to restrict the use of eminent domain. Vote No on 26, Mississippi!

 

You can click on the picture for a full size version to download and print if you want.

On the following links, these open in Google Docs - you can click "Download Original" in the top right to save to your desktop for printing or you can use the zoom for better reading.

I also have a PDF that takes apart the lies in a "yes on 26 dot net" flier claiming we are lying about our concerns about what 26 will do. TakingApartLies.pdf

The last offering is a more informative flier about Initiative 26 that also shows the ballot preview.  N0on26Flier.pdf

Vote No on 26, Mississippi!

My Picture and other people's comments on Personhood

(the following comments snagged from FARK thread)

What is the official life-begins-at-conception stance on identical twins?

Did God put two souls in the one cell at the beginning?
Did he add an extra soul after the split?
If not, is one twin a soulless monster?

Also, If he put in two souls at once because he knew it would become twins, wouldn't it therefore be logical to assume that he put in no souls in the fetus he knew would be aborted?

******************************************************

When I was in high school in MS, I received a letter from some state department along with my out-of-state college applications/letters. I wish I had the letter so that I could copy it, but I distinctly remember the line, "Mississippi is suffering from "brain drain" meaning that our best and brightest students leave the state and are not coming back."
The letter continued to implore that when I finished my education outside of Mississippi, that I consider returning.

Whenever I read about crap like this, I am glad that I did not return. That state is too full of stupid for anyone with a brain or an education to handle.

I am also sure that I would have been lynched by now for being an educated, physically fit, unmarried, minority adult female who does not want children or believe in god.

******************************************************

FYI: eggs can get fertilized and never attach to the wall of the womb, that egg ends up on a pair of panties or the end of a tampon, it doesn't develop into a child and never will. A fertilized egg is not a baby... yet

There's a lot of conditions for an actual baby to develop, and sperm meets egg is not it

sperm meets a lot of things in the female body, doesn't make it life either. Sperm penetrates the uvula, doesn't mean there's a baby growing in the woman's throat...

****************************************************** 

Look, we moved back here for the same reason. My husband grew up in Mississippi, and he got scholarships stipulating he come back to the state to practice once his education was complete. But I will not be birthing my children and raising them somewhere that says that Rape Victims have to carry and birth the child of their rapist, never mind that their DNA was stolen in an act of violence and hate. I will not be having kids somewhere, where the doctor has to wait for my fallopian tube to burst before terminating an ectopic pregnancy. I will not give birth somewhere where my obstetrician has to worry about being prosecuted for murder if he has to choose between my life and child inside me. I will not live somewhere that would dictate what I can do with frozen embryos. I could go on and on. This law is absolutely medieval and unacceptable.

Even my birth control pills, when I used them, said they could be used as morning after pills in an emergency, which would mean we're gonna be somewhere where I won't even be able to get birth control. I plan on getting an IUD after my firs pregnancy, but I could be prosecuted for murder in this state for doing that under this law.

Mississippi just released their big economic development blueprint for the state, which heavily featured recruiting more educated people to the state. It's absolutely laughable these people think they can try to pass a law like this and get any remotely sane educated person to move here.

We moved here to help. But there are certain human rights we're not going to sacrifice. This law makes me a 2nd class citizen to some cells in my belly, and jeopardizes my health. Coming here to a less-vibrant economy to try to help be a part of seeing the state grow and succeed into a stronger economic and educational footing is one thing. Sacrificing the reproductive health of our family to fight a bunch of fundies over abortion is not what we moved here for, and not something I'm willing to sacrifice.

****************************************************** 

and, finally, the only real reason I can think of that people want to force women to give birth to unwanted children they can't possibly care for properly :

...because in 18 years they can send it off to fight an unjust war for natural resources halfway across the world?

 ****************************************************** 

Okay, really one more... I agree with this one. I believe the soul enters the body around the first breath.  I usually say "with the first breath" but do believe there is a time window.

True human life begins when there is a soul in the body. That may happen before birth, or it can actually happen after the birth of the baby. Some cases of crib death occur because no soul has gone into that body.

 

Link (new window)

Edgar Cayce was able to pick up accurate information while he was in a very relaxed, trance-like state. Without any medical training, he could diagnose medical problems in people who were miles away from him. His "readings," - 14,000 in total - cover topics including just about everything relating to people and their concerns.

It's kind of hard to research this, because the readings are so extensive. But I did find this, and it seems I didn't remember the entry time correctly - it's usually close to the time of birth. I guess I was thinking of the fact that the soul can enter the baby's body early - up to three months before birth, I think:

The soul generally enters the baby body at or near the time of birth. In one unusual case in the Cayce readings, the soul did not enter for two days after the birth of the baby. When asked about the delay, Cayce responded that the soul was all too aware how very difficult life would be should it choose to enter, and it wasn't at all sure it wanted to go through with it! Cayce was then asked what kept the baby's body alive for two days while the soul wrestled with its decision, and he responded, "the spirit." For Cayce, the soul was the entity, with all its personal memories and aspirations, and the spirit was the life force.

John Van Auken, Link (new window)

**********************************

Amendment - found this comment elsewhere. :

Let us not forget about the things that happen when someone is desperate and will feel driven to resort to what used to be called back alley abortions. They also fail to consider the consequences that can occur when a bunch of unwanted, unplanned and unloved persons are in the schools etc. Sometimes an unplanned child is loved and cherished by the parents but sometimes they are just resented and mistreated. Seems to me how many children and when those children are born should be left up to the people who will be responsible for them until they can care for themselves. Since the, shall I say, right leaning people don't want to feed the hungry, help to support the elderly or educate the kids who are already here why should they be meddling in peoples efforts to control the size of their families?

**********************************

okay, these comments :
About 80% of fertilzed eggs never implant, actually. And quite a few after that get rejected by nature's QA system (face it: eukaryotic reproduction is a low-yield process.)
Which explains why Christianity places such emphasis on the sinfulness of women and doesn't trust them with anything important.
Next up: every fertile woman to be required to take a medical exam (at her expense, of course) monthly to make sure that she's not guilty of a felony.

**********************************

and this one :
Imagine living in a reproductive police state. China is one.
Now, how would the State of Mississippi sue the fed to provide these embryos with SS#'s? And similarly, will MS change their tax forms to include fetuses as dependents? Will OB/GYNs be required to submit conception certificates to their local health departments?
WIll you get free ice cream or desert twice a year instead of just once? And what might a 22d-century grave marker look like if you were conceived in October?

Charts set off Comments #OWS

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10

The above article was fairly straight forward with commentary on the graphs and charts that followed.  It is well worth a look.  One guy's comment (Nick) got 'featured' and that set off a lot of comments.  I replied... and so did a lot of others.  I have taken a select few and also copied my replies to Nick's comment on the story.  Enjoy!

First two of my comments :
******************************
@Nick: CEO Pay, no matter what the flimsy 'reason' behind it is excessive and a leading cause of the economic collapse.  They produce little to nothing - they only take credit for the profits produced by the workers.  The workers deserve more of a share of those profits they create.  Then we can continue to be the engine of our economy. (see chart 15)

Lehman Brothers collapsed the name and split up to it's holdings - like Barclays, Neuberger Berman and others. They are not gone, not punished - in fact, not paying their bills because they declared 'bankruptcy.' Merrill Lynch is active as ever. Don't try spreading lies that a quick google search will disprove.  But, basically you are saying that the banks have taken our money and don't have much of it left after gambling it all away...  I don't think that gets them off the hook.

Tax Equality - Okay, the top 20% pay 64% of taxes while taking "only" 59% of all income and having "only" 83% of all financial wealth and 73% of ALL net worth. 20% have over 80% of all the money.  Sorry, not going to feel one drop sorry for them paying 64% of taxes - they should be paying 70% at least.  Of course, if we, the working class, were paid better, then we would, by default, pay more of a share of taxes.

You want to know why the economy is in the tank? Look at chart 17.  The top 1%'s share of pre-tax income has skyrocketed.  They are leeching all the money out of the economy.  They don't spend nearly as much of their income as the lower brackets do, so it is effectively out of the economy.  The less the Middle Class and poor's shares get, the less the leeches have to live off of.  In classic parasite mentality, they are not going to stop sucking until the host is dead... and we almost are.  To save ourselves, we have to either get rid of the leeches totally or they can start taking less of the money supply.

******************************
@the eye:
the eye said, "Yeah and how much of the risk did the labor force take in investing in that company (YOU failed to mention that--oh and the answer is ZERO)

Not true in any sense. How much of the risk did the labor force take? A heck of a lot. They accepted a job there. We have bills to pay, mouths to feed and we are trusting that the company will provide fair compensation for a hard day's work - and that it will not be a flash in the pan company that fails and leaves us holding our hats and out of a job. Saying that employees take no risk is sheer stupidity. That is why we work so hard to make the company successful - we like having an income, we like having a job. We just want a fair share of the profits we produce.

Your idiotic mentality is one of the major problems in this country - we are not interchangeable.

Still, the problem is NOT the owner making a lot more than the average worker - although they should feel like Mr. Henry Ford that making 40 times what an average worker makes is indecent. The problem is with the CEO - same zero 'skin in the game' as any other employee - is making close to 300 times what an average worker makes. And, when the CEO drives the company to failure, they get golden parachutes and are actually REWARDED for destroying jobs of people who have given their lives to the company.

I agree Labor doesn't create 100% of profits - but its at least 80%. How are you doing to do much of anything without labor?

No, it may not be our money, but it is our labor, our effort, our sweat and our time. Even if a CEO set new policies, the benefits are created by the labor that carries them out and implements them. So, in your example, the CEO may have earned $50 million, but $50 million should go to those who actually did the work.

In the end, the income inequality is what is hurting the overall economy - it is simply not sustainable. Businesses that aggravate the inequality are, in the end, hurting themselves as well.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1amjgPbm5

Now, other people's comments!
******************************
Ron R on Oct 13, 6:08 PM said:
@Nick: @ Nick:
Well, as one of those baby boom entrepreneurs who started a technology company (manufacturing specialized instrumentation in the US, believe it or not), I call BS on your CEO salary rationalization.

The top end incomes being referred to here are not those of entrepreneurs who are creating things and increase total wealth- they are the incomes of those in the financial services sector, who are overwhelmingly engaged in a speculative zero sum game, and only make money if someone else loses.

Makers grow the economy and create jobs, speculators don't grow anything, and when they create a bubble and drive prices up to the point of collapse, or falsify what they are selling- as happened recently- they actually destroy opportunity for the rest of us.  A small financial sector is important for liquidity, but ours has grown far out of bounds (from about 10% historically to well over 35% of all business profits recently) and this is hurting our long term economic prospects. When your best and brightest are going into investment banking or bond trading rather than engineering or research (because that's where the easy money is), something is very sick in the economy. Gambling is not a basis for a healthy economy.

Of course the rich pay a slightly higher percentage of their incomes overall in taxes than do the poor- though the differential is much less now than it has been historically. Top marginal rates were vastly higher during our strongest growth years, WWII to 1980. This enabled investment in infrastructure and human capital, like education. When I was in college, tuition at state schools was essentially free- if you could get in and do the work, you got an education. After 40 years of tax cutting, national and state, this is no longer the case. As the charts show, we now have the lowest social mobility among advanced countries- over generations, that hurts America both economically and socially. Ultimately, it hurts the rich. Companies like mine, who need a strong middle class to create demand, already feel it.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1amcmLQzN

******************************
rnoonan440 on Oct 13, 11:09 AM said:
@Nick: 30 Years of Wealth Redistribution

There has been a massive "wealth redistribution" that has gone on for the last 30 years. The top 1% now controls over 42% of all of our nation's wealth and the top 10% now controls over 70% of our entire nation's wealth. The bottom 50% only control a meager 2.5% of all of our nation's wealth. How did this happen?

30 Years of Ballooning Executive Salaries/Stagnate Middle Class Salaries:
The middle class spends their wealth on goods/services and the corporations make a profit off of that spending. The corporations have redistributed middle class wealth by paying the majority of their profits all out to the executives and shareholders. The middle class has been getting less and less of a share of the corporate profit pie.

Middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years while executive wages have gone up 256% in since 1980. Even last year executive compensation went up another 11%. The top 1% now controls over 42% of the entire nation's wealth. We have not seen numbers like this since the great depression. The top 10% controls 70% of the entire nation's wealth. All of our nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few.

Wages were Replaced with Easy Credit/Loans:
The middle class was roped into replacing wages with easy credit. So instead of paying people living wages, corporations fooled us into thinking we were doing well and could afford things by giving us easy credit instead of wages. Instead of having wages to buy t.v.'s, furniture, etc. we were given easy loans. So the middle class became a debtor class.

Loss of Tax Disincentive Against Paying out all Profit to the Executives & Shareholders:
There used to be a tax disincentive to paying out all of corporate profits at the top because in the 1950's income was taxed at 90% over a certain amount money and now that tax disincentive has disappeared. In 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1960-1970's it was 70%. In 1980's it dropped to 49%. In 1990's dropped to 39%. Under George Bush it dropped to a mere 36%. We have had over 30 years of massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

There is now no tax disincentive to paying out all of the corporate wealth at the top. And there is no employee bargaining power because now less than 12% of all of our jobs are unionized. Corporate profits are at an all time high, healthcare company profits are at an all time high, and oil profits are at an all time high. We don't have a healthcare crisis we have a healthcare company profit-taking crisis that no politician will doing anything about. Healthcare and oil companies have enjoyed a decade of record profits while we have had a decade of massive premiums for little coverage and a decade of outrageous gas prices.

The Problems:
The problems are: 1) deregulation of the banks by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999; 2) hedge funds are exempt from regulation; 3) tax system no longer has a disincentive against paying outrageous executive salaries (highest marginal tax rate has dropped from 90% to 36%); 4) commodities market is exempt from regulation (Republican-controlled Congress exempted it in the Commodities Future Modernization act of 2000); 5) the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds in campaign elections (thus politicians on both sides favor the wealthy/corporations) and 6) the rise of corporate/billionaire propaganda media "news." Because of the need to raise massive sums in politics today, we no longer have a party that represents the people. The Democrats have to chase the corporate and big money donors too.

The Solutions:
What can we do about this: 1) re-instate Glass-Steagall Act regulating the banks; 2) regulate hedge funds and the commodities market (because the commodities market is not regulated speculation has caused prices for commodities to go through the roof); 3) get rid of the money in politics (have federally funded elections with clear limits on spending and no outside groups allowed to have ads); 4) get rid of 1980's laws stating that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits; and 5) regulate "news" channels and newspapers (no more "slanted opinion news" masquerading as hard news) and reinstitute the fairness doctrine across all news outlets to ensure that both sides get equal time.

Corporations should have duties to society and to their workers too. They should have to balance their duties to maximize shareholder profits against their reinstated duties to their employees and to society. The laws saying that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits have led to the destruction of long-term business plans and care for their workers and have created short-term profit monsters at the expense of workers and society.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1amZPzBfB

******************************
Philip Lee on Oct 13, 3:32 PM said:
@Nick: Aw...The poor rich. They sound like they need a hug right now.

Really? That's not the point. If the rich are so upset about being taxed so much...Hey! Here's a thought! How about they LOWER THEIR SALARY! Let me explain to you how this works: They lower their salary, they get into a lower tax bracket. Payroll at a company says "Look at all this extra money we have to reward the workers!" who are doing ALL of the work, or else that CEO wouldn't even have a job. The lower 99% Then get up into those higher tax brackets and get charged more in taxes! Hell...They might even create more jobs because more people would be spending, meaning companies would have to produce more.

Call me crazy, but your argument for the rich falls short.

What would happen if people quit buying things that make these corporations so rich? That is what no one ever thinks about. You need a middle class to buy things in a consumer-based society...It's really just common sense based economics. The focus has been put at the head's of these organizations as the reason why the economy exists, but I say if the 99% refused to go to work and started learning to exist on a bartering system with each other, the upper 1% would be the ones out of work. What the upper 1% needs to understand that their kind have always been expendable at the hands of the masses, and revolution has always been an option. I guess the upper 1% need to figure out what is more important to them: Their money or their future?


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1ambb6NOt

******************************
Chelsea on Oct 13, 5:31 PM said:
@Nick: You fail to see that the quality of life of the rich does not go down if they get taxed more. They can still eat, own several houses, cars, see doctors regularly, and send their kids to Ivy League schools.

A Christian person sees this as one of the seven deadly sins, greed. We have a culture that revels in buying the newest, the best, the most expensive. But take a step back and see what things the rich use their money for: it's primarily "getting stuff."

I realized that everyone should have the freedom to buy whatever things they wish. However, the current state the country is in only allows that freedom to the rich...while the rest of the country struggles with impossible decisions between buying food and paying rent.

I'm not jealous of the rich. I have never once wished to be rich. And most of the people upset with the way our country is run also do not want to be rich.

They want to live in a country where they can earn enough money to live, and be able to save up a little extra money for starting a family.

You have to ask yourself a moral question: while corporations and millionares certainly have a right to their money, does someone making $2M a year really need $1M as much as someone making $20K per year needs $10K? Do you support someone's right to have superfluous amounts of money over someone's right to eat a halfway decent meal, a livable place to sleep, or a yearly doctor's visit?

How much do you value a human life?


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1amcMt3Kg

******************************
Phillip Shen on Oct 13, 6:34 PM said:
@Nick: I call BS to Nick's post.

Let's go through your contentions 1 by 1.

RECORD CEO PAY:
"They want the best and the brightest and the surge in demand made it very competitive in rounding up the talent to successfully manage the business you built with you blood sweat and tears".

Former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli got a $210 mil severance package after ruining Home Depot's stock. Carly Fiorina got $45 million after screwing up HP.

Let's not go into all the bonuses that AIG and other Wall Street firms gave at the end of 2008 after the blowup. The list goes on and on. Look, I'm pretty sure there are great CEOs out that get paid very well and don't screw the company, but here's the issue that folks like I have: there's no penalty for poor performance (please don't say being let go of the company with such a huge severance package is punishment. If that's a punishment, smeg, I want a million dollar severance package too!). Additionally, it's not ONLY that the pay is so disproportionally large compared to your average worker, it's that the average worker's wage has hardly gone up at all -- yet US work productivity HAS gone up these last 30 years. I highly doubt all that productivity has come exclusively from the executives. That is what people are frustrated about when people mention CEO pay.

THE BAILOUT
"People scream about the taxpayer money bailing out banks and totally ignore that the people who paid the most in taxes toward that bailout were the bankers themselves. Thats right, the 1% pays the most taxes."

You're missing a big point here. People weren't only angry at the bailouts because they thought only their money was used to bail out the banks. People were angry because 1) These motherf****ers nearly destroyed the world economy, 2) ANY money at all was used to bail these motherf***ers out, 3) none of these motherf****ers paid any price for being saved. No indictments, no arrests, nothing except golden parachutes and a dog-and-pony show for a few days in congress (where they all basically feigned ignorance). Hell to THIS DAY, none of these motherf***ers even THOUGHT they did anything wrong.

Saying that "oh, most of the money bailing the banks out didn't come from the 99%!" doesn't cut it. Yeah, most of the taxpayer money may have come from the 1% -- but guess what? It seems to have gone back to the 1% to keep them afloat!

Some people may want to pull a Rick Santelli and blame the 2008 crisis on the uninformed homeowners who took on NINJA loans. And yes, ignorant homeowners certainly deserve some of the blame for not knowing better. But that is missing an even huger point. Who offered the NINJA loans to begin with? Greedy brokers who wanted to a large throughput of mortgages. Who confounded the situation by making ridiculous complex CDOs and CDSs? The big Wall Street corps.

Who approved of these junk CDOs with AAA ratings? Why, all the ratings agencies. All of these confounded an already bad situation, and this confounding wasn't the fault of dumb homeowners. It was this huge swamp of CDO and Credit Default Swap upon Credit Default Swap that nearly brought the economy to its knees. I don't give a f*** if it was legal or within the law -- it certianly wasn't ethical, and people should have known better. And yet they go on TV and into town halls and blame people that they themselves tricked into buying homes. THAT'S why we hate these motherf***ers.

TAX EQUALITY
"How can the people who contributed the least to the bailout gripe about it the most? ... The rich don't pay their fair share? Spare me. They pay the biggest and most disproportionately large share of anyone. "

You might as well just come and out and tell us to eat f***ing cake. Look, for you guys to pull out the card and say "hey look, we're already paying a lot!" doesn't cut the fact that you may be paying a lot, BUT YOU'RE NOT PUTTING MUCH BACK INTO THE SYSTEM EXCEPT FOR YOURSELVES. I don't see jobs being created, no sir. I don't see a lot of investment into things that help the middle and lower classes, no sir. The 99% didn't exactly bounce back after 2008, did they? Not like the 1%, not by a long stretch. I certainly don't see the 1% having to tighten their belts to afford just basic necessities like the middle and lower classes have. As Henry put it in his graphs, the rich are doing pretty damn well while the rest of the country's wages are stagnant.

You're not feeling the economic strain -- we are.

You tell us "stop being lazy, get a job!". Well hell, that would be easy if there were jobs were plentiful to get! For every 1 position there's 7 people looking. You may say "how about get a lower paying job and just bite your lip". Well, how about you skip out on a new yacht for a year and just bite your lip and pay your damn fair share in taxes? This sense of entitlement is killing me. You guys are treating the rest of us as if we had it so well and as if you guys are having it so rough.

So that's why people are out in the streets, that's why people are angry, and that's perhaps something you'll never understand unless you were once poor or struggling yourself. Go find a politician to lobby instead of trying to defend yourself on a website.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1amdFuXFr

******************************
Another Nick on Oct 13, 7:43 PM said:
@Nick: The problem with numbers
As Nick clearly demonstrates, numbers don't reflect day-to-day reality and can be interpreted many ways. Nick sees two bar graphs, and assumes that the top 20% are paying more than their fair share of taxes, because as he sees it, they pay a bigger percentage in taxes than the percentage of the nation's wealth

they control. What he ignores, however, is that the percentage they control is 14 times the percentage paid in taxes. So hmm... basically... someone with a dozen candy bars, gives the system which we all depend on and benefit from HALF a candy bar. While the other four people who only have a QUARTER of a candy

bar per person, give up half together. (Candy Bars stand for portions of the economy in this metaphor) Yes... the rich pay their fair share... in irrational numbers land!

Ceo's and Owners
Secondly, when we talk about those CEO's and Owner's "earning" it. Exactly how did they do that? Administration? Wow... administration REALLY produces products, oh wait it doesn't. Labor does that. Right, so the people that MAKE things of value... they get far less than the people who sit back and go

golfing all day while the rest work. Right. Again... makes perfect sense. Oh, did I forget to mention their idea of administrating business is shell corporations hiding debt, and exporting jobs over-seas, while dodging corporate taxes, all to increase value to share-holders, none of which in this scenario actually personally work to produce anything of value to the world.

Bailout of the banking system.
Money is an imaginary commodity. It's invented wholesale from thin air at this point, and distributed through banks to facilitate trade. The Banking system is given a great deal of trust to store and manipulate this imaginary commodity into greater value for all. They failed. Terribly. You see, money is only WORTH something when it's being traded. It's a place-marker for value. I give you this, you give me money, later I will give this money out to someone for something I desire. In a perfect world, this is how simplistic and functional money would be as an imaginary marker holding value. Unfortunately, people don't treat money like it's imaginary and the real world repercussions of the banks actions were "Armageddon" as nick put it. Homes foreclosed, kids unfed, schools unfunded, etc, etc. Again... the banker's role in society is to facilitate trade, be it through business loans or small personal loans. They've devalued our currency, and nearly destroyed our entire economy with their greed and pollution of toxic imaginary assets. Now they're not loaning, even though we as a nation didn't let them fail, primarily because we have no alternative system in place. Wrong again Nick. And yes, those responsible for these toxic commodities never saw punishment.

Day-to-day reality is much different than numbers, you see... many millions unemployed, millions more not even trying (not earning a living wage, struggling to eat, pay bills, trying to live IN homes and apartments instead of on the streets), while... bankers, those lovely individuals that provide zero real-world and not-entirely-imaginary products to the world, sit in their skyscrapers and continue to play with numbers as if they're real.

That is the problem with numbers.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#comments#ixzz1ameThoCg

Anti-Abortion is Not Pro-Life

On November 8th, 2011 in the General Election for Mississippi, there will be three Ballot Initiatives to vote on. 26 - to redefine "person" in our constitution, 27 - to require voter ID (ie disenfranchise voters) and 31 - to restrict the use of eminent domain.

The Anti-Abortion movement likes to present itself as "Pro-Life" when nothing could be further from the Truth.

Let me explain.

To me, "Pro-Life" entails compassion, consideration and caring.  "Pro-Life" extends to all life, not just humans.  "Pro-Life" is a realization that we are all connected - humans, plants, animals, fish, insects.  To be "Pro-Life" you must be anti-pollution, anti-poverty, anti-hunger, pro-education, pro-wildlife and pro-environmental protections.  To be "Pro-Life" you must value life and care about quality of life.  To be Pro-Life, you must want to protect the rights of minorities and people who are not like you, whether by sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, race, language or size.

Anti-Abortionists often support the death penalty, are against helping the poor, don't support a good education for all, are against environmental protections, are hateful toward others who are different and don't care about a child that has already been born.  "They're born now, they're on their own," seems to be their motto after the live birth.  I see most Anti-Choice stances as being more about domination and control than any actual concern for life. Some even seem to have some sort of revenge motive - as if they feel slighted by the world and want more to suffer as they have.

They are systematically destroying women's health rights.  They are on a campaign that will increase poverty, increase hunger, increase abuse, increase neglect and increase prison populations.  When I see these people, I see monsters.

If anyone is truly "Pro-Life" and want to put an end to abortions - well, that is never going to happen.  If they want to reduce abortions, I have a few suggestions.

• STOP trying to pass legislation, stop trying to outlaw abortion, realize that there are going to be times when women WILL abort, legal or not and its best to have it done safely and professionally. 
• Put all that money into outreach.
• Partner with Planned Parenthood to offer real alternatives - 
• Pay pregnancy medical and life expenses
• Help arrange and pay for adoptions (that won't cost the adoptive parents the normal $30,000+)
• Real (not abstinence only) Sex Education to prevent unwanted pregnancies
• Quit trying to end a symptom, try to stop the Causes. 

IF you are really about promoting life, then stop trying to control other people.  IF you are really about personal responsibility, then let people take responsibility for their own actions to do what they believe is the best and right thing to do.

For further reading :

GOP proposes "let women die" bill

Personhood Colorado - the one that started all this nonsense and haven't (so far) changed their stance that it would outlaw "the Pill" because of it's tertiary effect.
American Life League - If you think extremists won't try to take advantage of Mississippi 26 if passed, take a look at these monsters.
Clarion Ledger article - This rag is so right-wing its crazy, but this article is spot on.
RHRealityCheck article - Although the author thinks that 'the pill' would never act as an abortificant - and 90% of the time it doesn't - he presents valid points about the anti-choice movement.  There are also more RHRealityCheck articles to browse.
A Letter to the Sun Herald - interesting to read the comments too.


I also had to share (most of) a comment on that Idiot Gregg Harper's Facebook wall about him supporting the "let women die" act...

Gayle Biedenharn Walker

As a former social worker, I can assure you that many children are neglected or abused because their parents-frequently a single parent- are unable or lack proper emotional and financial resources to care for them. I support a woman's right... to choose whether to bear a child. This state as well as many others does not provide needed social and financial resources to care for these children. If abortion or other forms of birth control are unavailable or prohibitively expensive, then women are forced to bear children that they may not want. The result in many cases is that children lack proper supervision and emotional support. They may drop out of school, join gangs in their search for a sense of belonging, or begin a life of crime and drug abuse. To me, this is a much more important moral issue than the "protect life" amendment.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and post this before it becomes a novel.... :)

Addendum :
A brave "anonymous" poster on my No on 26 post called me a murderer and said that I should move to a different state to continue my 'murderous work.'

I commented on the post to the coward, but I have more to say.

First off, I am not an abortion doctor, I don't provide abortions.  I do not promote abortion. Nobody is eager to have/perform/experience an abortion. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a sick and twisted individual.

Hot Air Balloon

kimbanyc

LIBERAL NY DEMOCRAT

4483 Fans

Become a fan

6 minutes ago (11:07 AM)

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,

"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximat­­­ely 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude
and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am,"replie­­­d the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist­­­, "everythin­­­g you told me is
technicall­­­y correct. But I have no idea what to do with your
informatio­­­n, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help
to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican­­­."

"I am," replied the balloonist­­­. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are
going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot
air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect
me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were
in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

(posted on HuffPo Recall Scott Walker article.)

While I am here... there is a GREAT post over on Angry Bear Blog about the "repatriation tax holiday" that Republican Corporatists (is that an oxymoron?) are all aflutter about.