Bigots on a Bus

 Well... multiple of each there. I took a couple hours out of my day to attend, in protest, a rally sponsored by Return America and the North Carolina Family Council, that was intended to support SB106. What is this wonderful piece of legislation, you ask? SB106 is the bill that would allow the North Carolina version of Prop 8; in essence it would draft and put out for referendum a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman. But, Dave, you're not gay? No, I'm not. I also don't agree with legislation stemming from religious ideals, nor do I agree with walking all over someone's legal rights because they happen to find people of the same gender attractive.
(more below the fold)

Since you brought it up...

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2011/01/25/7_non-political_differences_between_liberals_and_conservatives

  A blogger who writes for townhall.com recently posted what he considers to be 7 non-political differences between liberals and conservatives. I think those would do well to be subjected to critical examination.

 1) Conservatives are more patriotic than liberals:Conservatives tend to focus on the positive things about America, while liberals focus on the negative. If the first thoughts that came to your mind when you thought of America were “slavery,” "imperialism," and "unfairly using too much of the world's resources," you probably wouldn't like America very much either. Conservatives, on the other hand, look at the fact that we saved the world in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, take pride in the fact that we have contributed so much to the planet, and believe America has had a tremendous positive impact on history. The conservative view produces love of country. The other view produces a deep seated dislike of our nation.

  Gee, that's great... you're optimists. Or you've failed to see the reality in front of you, which is that the rest of the world doesn't much like us because of an imperialist, unilateral foreign policy. Am I less patriotic than some/most conservatives? Perhaps, but I don't consider that to be a bad thing, and it doesn't mean I don't want 'murica to succeed, it means I view it in a more reasonable light. Rampant nationalism doesn't have much to recommend it, historically speaking.

One side or other needs to be rational...

Dear fellow left-wingers,
  The recent shooting (I hate the overuse of the word tragedy, and I'm refusing to use it in this case) in Arizona my be the result of a deluded neo-nazi/tea party loon, but let's be frank here: those spewing right-wing rhetoric are no more responsible for the actions of a violent psychopath than those promoting left-of-Lenin politics are to blame for the actions of someone that might listen to them. If you'd like someone to blame, place it squarely on a) said violent psychopath, b) our lack of health care that failed to identify and treat someone that is clearly mentally ill, and c) whichever douchebag reviewed this man's pistol permit and concluded that despite a record of mental issues, he should be allowed to own a weapon.
  Is political rhetoric inflammatory on both sides? Yes. Is it possible that someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic might take right-wing talk radio a little too seriously? certainly. OTOH, unless someone can produce direct quotes that were intended to incite someone to violence, CAN IT. (Yes, Palin's "Don't retreat, RELOAD" tweet is ridiculous, but it's also the product of a mind simple enough to think that it was witty rather than particularly violent).

But he's only worried about teh childrenz!

Rachel Maddow deals rather well with this man, considering what a complete twit he is... Note the persecution complex and cries of "I'm thinking of the children" coming from someone who wants to have homosexuals jailed for life or put to death. It's only in Uganda you say? Yes, but his backers are not, and have their fingers in a number of Congressional and gubernatorial pies (pun intended). For those that don't want to bother watching this deplorable fool, the highlights are thus:

  He accuses homosexuals of 'recruiting' children in schools by paying them American dollars to become gay.

He believes that homosexuality can be 'cured'.

His 'kill the gays' bill is based on his interpretation of Biblical law, which unfortunately seems to match what's written in Deuteronomy and Exodus. I'm not about to pollute my blog with verse; feel free to find it yourself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New Life for Liberals...

 In light of the recent surge of the Tea Party, Democrats, and liberals in general, seriously need to find an answer to that energy, however misplaced it may be. This is my solution.

  We are the future of America, not trying to recreate an ideal that never existed. Wrapping yourself in the flag may gain you some votes, but it's also the path to Fascism, and we should refuse that path.

Core Values:


- All people should be treated equally and equitably. Thus, restrictions to marriage, voting, and holding office based on sexual orientation and religious persuasion need to be abolished immediately as they run contrary to the founding principles of this nation, and, more importantly, to common decency and ethics.

- In an effort to continue the above, the income tax system should be abolished and replaced with a value-added tax on all purchases. This is the only permissible tax on citizens, and as it is based on spending rather than income or property, it is entirely voluntary in an important sense: if you don't want to give money to the government, don't spend any.

- A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system aimed at breaking the cycle of crime, and the poverty from whence that cycle arises. Criminals will be given reasonable sentences, and billed for their room and board while incarcerated,  after the first year. In order to allow the prisoner a means of doing this, they will be afforded the opportunity to learn a trade or complete a degree during their imprisonment, and then paid for their time, less the real costs incurred by housing them. This not only gives the prison system a chance to be self-financing, but provides a means to be a productive member of society when released. Prison manufactured goods will be sold on the open market. Citizenship rights will be stripped from no one, including felons, once they have served their sentence.

- Decriminalisation of illegal drugs, and the legalisation of marijuana. We spend far too much money on law enforcement for something that we cannot hope to control. Prohibition is not an effective solution, therefore: those arrested on drug offences will be sentenced to in-patient rehabilitation, not prison. Those convicted of trafficking or selling large quantities may still be subject to criminal penalties, as above, and in addition all liquid assets will be seized and donated to the rehabilitation programs that treat their customers.

- Real and reasonable social welfare programs: a) universal health insurance for all, administered by the government and paid for by tax dollars. Those under 18 and over 65 will receive completely free care and prescriptions, all others will pay a co-pay, up to a yearly limit. This is about eliminating a predatory health insurance industry and ensuring proper preventative care and treatment for all. Thus, health care providers will be paid on a per patient basis, and as an incentive, pharmaceutical companies will be awarded grants from NIH/NSF just like other researchers. These are for the public good, not profit, and should be treated as such.
b) Unemployment/disability insurance should continue, with the requirement that those taking benefits attend a workshop, weekly, aimed at job-seeking skills and/or training for a new career. Frankly, with the current computer technology, there's no reason to claim physical disability... unless you're mentally incompetent or quadriplegic, you can certainly operate a keyboard or man someone's customer service line.

- Dismantle the military-industrial complex, beginning with aggressive foreign policies and empire-building. This doesn't mean that we don't need a military for defensive purposes, nor even does it mean that we might not need bases on foreign soil, but we no longer need to enter into a war simply because the president feels the need to assuage daddy's pride. All acts of war require a formal declaration of such in Congress, as written into the Constitution. We need not inform the enemy of this declaration, but it ensures that one man or woman doesn't get to play a game of soldiers with real people again. To make up for the lost productivity in the economy, I suggest retooling all those brilliant minds and the factories that produce their inventions to generate clean, domestic energy sources. Removing the dependence on foreign oil will remove much of the need for the military in any case, and let's face it, the idea of clean coal is a joke. Ethanol/biofuels are a band-aid for this problem, what we really need are renewable, non-polluting energy sources.

- Government spending and size of government are not the problem, what we choose to spend government money on the the efficiency with which government business is conducted are. Not only should a government protect it's people, it should also serve their best interests, as determined by them.

An Open Letter to the Tea Party

To those involved in the 'movement' known as the Tea Party,
I can and do empathise with your frustration and anger directed and the political process in this country, and I fully support your right to publicly declare your opinions, no matter who distasteful I might find them. We should have that much in common, but the evidence of your practices would incline me to believe that you don't feel I have any right to opinions that differ from your own nor do you think I should be allowed to voice those opinions.
Perhaps what is required is a rational, evidence-based understanding of the issues on which you choose to make your stand, as excerpted from the Tea Party website.

Non-negotiable core beliefs
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

The view through your underpants must be great...

Excerpt from a Facebook post and conversation (I'll leave the usage and grammar alone, as it's too easy a target):

Brandy S. i cant believe that they are putting this shit up!!!! its FN RETARDED!!!!!! LETS JUST LET THE BASTARDS WHO BLEW US UP HAVE A PLACE TO WORSHIP WHERE WE GOT BLOWN UP AT!!!! ITS ALMOST LIKE A SHRINE FOR THEM FOR WHAT THEY DID TO US!!!! F THAT BS

I'm flying this flag to oppose the Muslim worship center at Ground Zero.
I am the 420,516th person to fly the flag in opposition of Muslim mosque at Ground Zero. I hope 5 million will join me! No app install required.
4 hours ago via Being Conservative - Fly the Flag · Comment · Like · Fly your Flag
Brandy S. i wonder how long it will take an american to blow up there stupid little shrine!!!!
3 hours ago · Like
April D. That's OBAMA for ya! Obama= One Big Ass Mistake America!
2 hours ago · Like
Brandy S. Hell yea!!!!
2 hours ago · Like

NOTE: In deference to another with the same name as the original poster, I have replaced all surnames with their initial.

They're more bigoted too...

NY Times says that Tea Party Backers are wealthier and more educated than the population as a whole... I think this article bears examination.
Firstly, this was determined by a phone survey, which included a whopping 1500 people (ok, almost 1600), which calls into question the validity of any of the data based on sample size and how representative the sample actually is of the American people. I'll be fair, and pretend that these issues don't exist for the sake of argument:
According to the survey, about 18% of the population supports the Tea Party movement, stemming from the bailout and continuing into resistance of Obama's health care initiatives. There's nothing cited in the article to substantiate the headline, whatsoever, so we're left to take the author's word for that. If it proved true, it would lend some credibility to the assertion that this is a class issue more than anything else (Yes, Jacqueline Holman, it means I'd have to agree with you on parts of this, since that's where the evidence lies). I'm inclined to buy the first half of that thesis, based on the selfish greed that drives the whole "I don't want to share my money with people who didn't earn it, even if it keeps them alive" sentiment behind the Tea Parties. I'm not terribly inclined to accept the better educated aspect, as it also cites that those people involved in the movement tend to be older Americans, who, quite frankly, didn't need to be better educated to compile the wealth that some of these people have. It could just as easily be a function of the good old boy networks, particularly since 80% of the people who identified with it were white males, and 98% were white.
Some of the other numbers are equally interesting... such as that 25% of them think that Obama is favouring blacks or the 90% that think America is headed in the wrong directtion. This reeks, unfortunately for those involved, of "I don't want teh Black as POTUS". Too far you say?

Well, the Pledge is safe...

The Federal Court of Appeals for District 9 ruled against Newdow. Again.
The Yahoo article is more depressing yet, and I'd happily rebut some of the fucktards on there if they could grasp the words.

Here's a better suggestion for their pledge:

From "Life in Hell", 16 Dec 94,


I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don't watch your step.

Ideological nonsense...

is ideological nonsense, regardless of the source, and it crosses lines of religious belief, political affiliation, and education level.

Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees.

Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party. President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%.[55]

from Wikipedia, so we can take it with a grain of salt (the figure is from a Pew survey).

The point of sharing this is to debunk the notion that the feelings of anti-intellectualism, exemplified by Palin, have roots in a class/educational divide. The teabagger, Glen Beck bullshit spewed forth by Repubs is certainly a function of something, but the data suggests that Repubs are also more likely to be educated and have a greater income than those who are not subscribing to an anti-intellectual agenda. They may hate what they perceive as liberal and educated, but they themselves are also educated, and make the same or better money than those they disparage. Irrationality is irrational, however you choose to frame it. Some people need to adjust their bullshit detectors to home in on liberal bullshit, rather than just that put forth by the right.
To relate this directly to a previous post and it's comments: It's nice to be able to say that the reasons behind the attempted segregation in Wake Co. and the backlash against Ms. Hussain are for reasons of class, but both are coming from the same source: middle to upper class, college-educated whites. Race issues anyone? Perhaps not, as that requires examination as well, but let's not project our beliefs onto the situation without examining the data.

Patriotic Jackassery

Someone will disagree with this, but, hell, someone disagrees with everything else I write as well. At the outset of a school pep rally today, our athletic director threw out two male Hispanic students who refused to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They weren't disruptive or disrespectful, in fact they weren't even speaking, they simply didn't stand and say the pledge. I was told, by the athletic director, to take them to our version of in-school suspension for that "offence", which I refused to do. Rather, I let the students stand just outside the gym doors and watch until I could get the attention of an administrator who promptly took them back in to be seated. The AD is furious that I went over his head (and that I took the students' side on this).
As I explained to the AD, I also refuse to say the pledge, although not for the same reasons as the students. Unless our government sees fit to remove the blatant and unconstitutional endorsement of religion from that document, I will continue to refuse to say the pledge, and if that were to happen I would still have reservations in publicly swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth and the nation. I have no intention of betraying the nation in which I live, and there are a number of things about this country that I admire and support, not least the fact that I have the freedom/right to decide whether or not I wish to say something like the Pledge of Allegiance because of the way our government was constructed. The students actually refused because they aren't yet citizens of the U.S., although they are here legally. That two adolescents (17 and 18 respectively) chose not to swear allegiance to a nation, of which they are not citizens (and that, at times, treats those of their ethnicity rather unjustly, to say the least), does not offend me in the least as a citizen of that nation. The athletic director, on the other hand, was absolutely incensed both with their conduct and my failure to condemn it.
A little research turns up this gem: 1943 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government, schools included, to compel speech in the manner of the Pledge. This at the height of World War Two, no less. Attempts since then to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the pledge, as they expressly support monotheism as a religious belief, have not resulted in Supreme Court rulings ( Newdow v. California was dismissed because the plaintiff was deemed not to have parental standing in the case). There are a number of more recent rulings that uphold the opinion that coercion of speech is not constitutional.
Basically, Wake Co. schools should be thanking me for saving them a lawsuit. Somehow I doubt I'll ever hear that thanks.

Teh Stoopid, it Burnz

Warning: This will be lengthy

I received this email a few days ago, forwarded by a childhood friend of mine who is quite intelligent, and , I thought, fairly reasonable and rational. As she's not the author of the illogical piece of trash I'll quote in a moment, I'll reserve any judgement and simply consider that she probably shares the neo-con political views of her parents. Needless to say, I do not, a fact of which she is apparently not aware when forwarding this drivel.

The Truth About the Health
Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09



Well, I have done it! I have read
the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care
Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area
of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of
the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.
What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.



To begin with, much of what has been said
about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats
and the media are saying. The law does provide for
rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other
classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants,
free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by
members of the medical profession.



The Bill will also eventually force
private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a
government run system. All decisions about personal health care will
ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health
care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and
allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the
government.



However, as scary as all of that is, it
just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this
legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care
choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer
of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even
been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major
portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been
destroyed.



The first thing to go will be the
masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be
transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different
areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.



The irony is that the Congress doesn't
have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin
with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find
any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.



This legislation also provides for
access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal
health care information, your personal financial information, and the
information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a
direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the
Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You
can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been
legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may
provide.



If you decide not to have
health care insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed
acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will
be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of
the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th
Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the
law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax,
it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due
process of law.



So, there are three of those pesky
amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of
Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop
there though.



The 9th Amendment that provides: The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people;



The 10th Amendment states: The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the
people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many
areas that once were theirs to control.



I could write many more pages about this
legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health
care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the
Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by
oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of
Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it,
without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I
voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me
accountable.



For those who might doubt the nature of
this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill
of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.



Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas

Well, there are some issues I can't argue here, since Mr. Connelly wasn't kind enough to actually link the bill itself. For one, I can't imagine how he could be privy to that information being a Constitutional Law instructor at where ever he may be (There are no accredited colleges or universities listed in Carrollton, TX)Since that's an argument from personal ignorance, let's give credit where none is likely due and pass over that issue altogether.
If by rationing of health care the author means that health care will be provided only to those who actually need that care, as determined by a medical professional, he's probably right, and I fail to see a problem with this. I personally don't want to pay for health care that I don't need, nor, I assume, would he. Other nations with nationalised health care actually provide services for everyone who's there, so giving care to "illegal immigrants" is a certainty if we follow working models. There's something rather inhumane about denying someone needed medical services because they talk funny, or were born elsewhere, so I invite you to consider the motives behind the author's complaint. I'd guess he doesn't like brown people much, but that's a bit hasty, we can find that out from further conversation (or could if he'd bothered to allow a way to respond personally to his diatribe). Abortion happens to be legal in this country, courtesy of Roe v. Wade, so the complaint that a new system would fund abortion is likely motivated religiously. Likewise the complaint that health care providers will be forced to provide a legal service to their constituents. "Family Planning" clinics that don't provide abortions, and even fail to refer patients to places who do, aren't all that scarce. Perhaps we can lift the misogyny long enough to correct this? I somehow doubt that Mr. Connelly has ever been in the position to require one himself, so it's not like he can add a valid viewpoint to the discussion. Alas, that complaint seems to be seated in the political and religious viewpoint that has respect for embryonic life but none for humans that can actually walk and talk.
Health care is currently regulated by insurance bureaucrats, most of whom are not health care professionals but paper-pushing clerks who are trying to maximise their profits. Comparing this to the proposed system wherein government bureaucrats would take their place, it amounts to a draw at worst. It's also possible that the government version, not driven by profits, might be just a bit less obnoxious to deal with and result in fewer medical expenses for the patient.
The author asserts that the balance of power between the branches of government will be compromised by a new health care system. He fails to supply anything resembling evidence for this assertion, so I can dismiss it with a similar lack of evidence.
For an instructor of constitutional law, this man's grasp of the constitution seems rather poor (so does his logic for a former attorney, for that matter). I'd speculate that he chased ambulances for a living, but ad homenem aside, we can simply examine his arguments as they stand.
3rd and 4th Amendments> The author maintains that the government having access to your healthcare records, in an effort to maintain that care, amounts to unreasonable search and seizure. Search and seizure of what, exactly? This bases itself on the assumption that there is something sinister involved here, rather than the exact same forces in play that your current health insurance apply. If we really want to get snarky, we can always consider that the Patriot Act did the same thing for any form of electronic communication you might have used while it applied. I'm siginicantly less concerned about the Obama administration having access to my medical records than I am (or was) about Bush and his theocrats having access to anything someone who might not agree with them said on the phone or in an email.
5th Amendment> The argument amounts to stating that paying taxes is tantamount to seizure or property without due process. While that may be a typical Libertarian view, it hasn't been applied to the rest of our tax system, and it's a function of a governed capitalist society that the government has to have money to operate. Somehow I don't see the author of that email donating to them.
The responses to the 9th and 10th Amendments are rather telling, as is the "I defy anyone to show me where it says in the Constitution that the government can regulate health care". Well, Mr. Connelly, since the medical profession in 1789 was also the same profession that was quite capable of giving you a nice shave and a haircut, whilst chopping off a limb or bleeding you because of poor "humours" in the blood, I imagine the founders didn't even consider giving that power explicitly to anyone; Nor did they implicitly give the federal government the power to regulate any other industry, say drug and food safety or worker's rights. As an instructor of Constitutional law, you must surely understand these things we call "implied powers"? We've been using them for about two centuries now.
It's entirely possible that the good lawyer is simply a genuine State's Rights man, of the sort that thinks they should still own slaves and lost a certain war over state's rights about 150 years ago. If so, he should consider encouraging his god-bot infested hellhole of a state to secede again. We wouldn't miss them, and I certainly wouldn't miss the bullshit arguments that he thinks he's provided.

Perhaps the map isn't so far off, but at least that little nation within a nation has shrunk since the map was designed.

Addendum In the interest of fairness, whomever originated the email left off the contact info, not the author. Michael Connelly can be contacted at mrobertc@hotmail.com , and his blog can be found here.

Random Drug Tests are Unreasonable Search/Seizure?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1552223.html

That's what an NC Appeals court ruled when the issue of random drug testing of teachers in Graham, NC was brought before it. I'm not sure about the constitutionality here, but I do have an opinion of random drug tests in general.

Random tests are going to catch two kinds of users: people with serious chronic drug problems, and someone who occasionally uses marijuana. I'm just fine with someone catching the first, as they don't need to be responsible for the care of children while under the influence, and are likely to have difficulty regulating their drug use/abuse enough to not be high at work. However, I'm not ok with penalising someone who smokes a joint in their basement on a Saturday with Pink Floyd playing in the same manner. The issue here is the marijuana a) stays in someone's system a lot longer than more dangerous substances (a couple weeks to a month, from most sources, as compared to a matter of hours or a day.), and b) not nearly as harmful a substance physically/mentally as things that aren't going to be caught (like the teacher who decides that weekends=cocaine). Drug testing someone because they do something stupid or appear to be high at work, now that I'm fine with.

This may be a case of my pro-hippie bias coming through. From my personal experience, and most statistics I've seen, potheads aren't aggressive or harmful to other people, they're simply lazy. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want a chronic pot user teaching my kids, if I had any, because I can't picture that being an effective teacher.

How is this harming you? Seriously.

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/n_c_mirrors_national_poll_results

N.C. mirrors national poll results
Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on March 23, 2009 - 11:44am.
Tags: constitution Elon University Poll gay marriage polling Under the Dome


North Carolina mirrors national sentiment on gay marriage.

A survey by the Elon University Poll roughly matches up to the results of a December poll by Newsweek that asked about state constitutional bans.

"Suppose your state held an election where you could vote for or against an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage," that poll asked.

In that poll, 49 percent of respondents were against a ban, 45 percent in favor and six percent unsure.

A recent Elon poll with similar wording found 50 percent opposed a North Carolina ban, 43 percent supported, five percent were unsure and one percent refused.

Both polls were of all households, not just registered or likely voters.

The Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from Dec. 3-4 of 1,006 adults. Its margin of error was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

A Recent phone survey conducted by Elon University matches the nationwide results... 49% of the US population would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Great... I understand those people. The 44% who would support such an amendment confuse me though. Honestly, how does the idea of two people, regardless of gender, getting married insult anyone? How is it anyone else's business what goes on behind the closed doors of someone's bedroom? (Within reason of course... no children or anything like that).

Iran glows in the dark?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090301/ts_nm/us_nuclear_iran_mullen

Oh great, a fundamentalist Muslim nation has enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon... can you picture the wonderful potential outcomes from this one?
1) The U.S. decides to invade because, well, that's what we do to people we think have these things.
2) Israel does something astoundingly stupid, like bombing the Iranian nuclear site and starting yet another shooting war in the Middle East.
3) Nothing, because we weren't right in the first place.
4) Iran builds their bomb, and uses it somewhere, sometime... or just hands it over to Al-Qaeda.
5) Insert scenario here...