The Santa Lie

Remember when you were young and Santa was real? Oh my, those were magical times weren’t they? When we were kids and we were told that a magical man dressed in red would deliver us gifts from the North Pole? We waited anxiously the night before, barely able to get to sleep, and sometimes you would be in bed thinking, “maybe I can catch him.” But alas you never could, unless of course you got out of bed only to find your presents being left under the tree by your parents. What awful timing.

I was in the third grade when I found out that Santa wasn’t real, despite having been told that he wasn’t real in the second grade from a cynical bully. I stilled believed that Santa was real for a whole other year before making the realization that he wasn’t. I don’t remember how I came to the realization; it just sort of popped into my mind from what I remember. I was in my fathers car and he was taking me to school when I just said, “Santa isn’t real, is he?” My father said, “No, he is not.” I then replied, “Neither is the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny?” My father came clean on them too.

It wasn’t until I became older that I became cynical of the idea of Santa. When I was younger I thought everyone knew he wasn’t real because I did and I told my friend who at the time stilled believed. My reaction to finding out that he still believed was very minimal. I just felt like, “Oh well he is fake, can’t be mad at me for telling him the truth.” Since then I have changed my tone a bit as I wouldn’t want to make a child not believe if they do believe. I just felt like I wouldn’t tell my kids a lie that a man dressed in red with magic powers come down our chimney once a year to leave gifts behind and eat your baked goods and drink your dairy products.

But I guess I had it all wrong really. After talking to a lot of people about I started to think what my childhood would be like if I never believed in Santa. I guess we tell the Santa lie to our children because we want their first years to be magical. The world can be a very scary, tough place, so why have it start out like that? Magic doesn’t exist and the happy ending never really comes true but would you really want to have your child experience something like that before they are emotionally capable of handling such ugly facts? Shouldn’t the beginning of their lives be full of magic and mystery? Sure once they find out the truth it will be a sad day, but for who? For the child growing up to realize the truths of the world or for the parents who are realizing that their kids are starting to understand that life isn’t always a happy place.

 I’m guessing it may be harder for parents then children. For humans there are certain things we realize when we are growing up and the truth isn’t as hard for kids to accept as you would think. I think it’s harder on the adults because they realize that their child is started to connect the dots to discover that magic doesn’t exist and they are growing up and not the little cute kid they used to be who got excited at the thought of Santa coming to bring them presents.

So in closing I think I would tell my kids about Santa when I have them. I think they deserve some magic in their lives even if the magic isn’t real. As long as they think it is real then it is real to them and that’s all that matters. When they discover the truth I don’t think they will take it as hard as I will.

The Christmas Wars

It’s Christmas time again, my favorite time of the year. Something about Christmas just brings out the joy and happiness and makes me want to get together with friends and celebrate by handing out gifts, drinking booze and wishing them a new hopefully prosperous new year. The house being decorated and a tree located in my living room filling my house up with the aroma of pine brings back old memories of Christmas’ s passed now and reminds me of the thrill and joy I had each night before and after Santa’s visit.

Even as an atheist, or rather as a person who doesn’t believe in religions, I love this holiday season. But does that mean I celebrate it as a time to worship or celebrate the birth of a deity? No, not at all I just want to celebrate the great year I had and try to stay happy as the amount of daylight we receive is incredibly reduced placing me in what seems like a dark and dreary world where things all around me are dying.

It becomes more and more funny to me when I look around and see Christians getting upset over the fact the Christmas is celebrated by secular people who don’t say ‘merry Christmas’ to you when you walk by but instead say ‘happy holidays’. To Christians this is an attack on their religion and their holiday, and to them we are ‘taking the Christ out of Christmas’.

This month I have prepared a few blogs (not very long ones) dedicated to Christmas, each one a different idea or thought on a single or few aspects of the holiday. This first one is about Christmas and how it is not a Christian holiday and the conservative right-wingers in this nation (and around the globe) are very wrong in believing and perpetuating the idea that there is an all out war being waged against Christmas.

The idea of Christmas, like many other ideas, came from the Pagans who celebrated this period of time as a period of death and rebirth. As we approach winter the ancient pagans noticed something (what must have been something scary for them back then) about the sun; it got lower and lower as it got closer to winter. By December 21^st their worst fear was realized when the sun peaked at it’s lowest point during the entire year, making it looks as if the sun was in fact dying and the earth would be plunged into this eternal darkness. But three days after the 21^st the ancient humans noticed that the sun started to get higher in sky, thus saving them from certain doom. To them this was the birth of the sun and their salvation, for the sun would remove the darkness and provide warmth and give plants the necessary nutrients to grow and product fruit, etc.

Throughout history this prototype for Christmas has been used by many other cultures, and now it is being most popularized by the recent solar savior, Jesus Christ (Christ isn’t his name by the way, Christ is a title meaning anointed one). In fact the holiday wasn’t even recognized by the church until circa 300AD. People like to also say that America is a Christian nation but the holiday wasn’t adopted as a national holiday until 1870. You would think that a Christian founded nation would have made that a priority.

You see, this is not a Christian holiday, nor is this a Christian nation. It’s an ancient human tradition and you don’t have to be a Christian to celebrate it. The idea of celebrating around the winter, to pray for better times, to surround yourself with friends an loved ones is actually a very ancient notion that predates Christianity and any other organized religion (although a bunch of ancient people worshiping the sun may in fact be interpreted as the first organized religion).

But now that we are all adults now and can make our own choices why are we being chastised for it? I don’t believe in the Christian god or any god for that matter, but I like to celebrate this time of darkness and death with friends in hope for light and prosperity. How am I launching a war against Christmas by not worshipping Christ? I haven’t gone into your church and said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa this isn’t right. Stop all of this right now or I’ll complain.” I think you have a right to believe in whatever god you believe in, worship whatever holiday you want, so why are you attacking me because I don’t believe in Christmas yet I celebrate this season with my friends?  

You may be reading this and be a Christian. If so I want to say that first off I really don’t care if I have offended you. People from your church offend me on a daily basis so if what I say annoys you then comment and debate this with me. You most likely think that since God has been around even before Christianity was an idea to humans that that must constitute for something. You may think, “Well the reason he is so happy and filled with joy is because its God’s doing and he just doesn’t realize that. Because Jesus is in all of our hearts and he puts that feeling there.” That just isn’t so. Since I was a kid we celebrated Christmas and I didn’t even know it was a religious holiday until I got older. It wasn’t Jesus’ magical powers making me feel joyous and wonderful on Christmas. It was being around my family and friends and knowing that the sun may never start going up again and we all may be on constant darkness, but at least we all have each other. And I don’t think that we can’t have that feeling unless there is some god to make it happen.

Obama’s Big Bad Benghazi Cover-up

On September 11^th 2012 an armed group of militants attacked a US Diplomatic consulate in Libya which killed four Americans and injured three Americans and seven Libyans. The next day President Obama addressed the people calling it an “outrageous attack.” And then the story was over with and everyone went back on with their lives. Well, not exactly.

Leave it up to the Republicans. John McCain came out blasting President Obama after comments he made at his Rose Garden address. McCain is blaming the Obama Administration of a cover-up in this incident in Benghazi, and rightfully so since Obama never actually told the American people that a diplomatic mission to Libya was attacked.

Wait a second…yes, he did tell the American people that a diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked. So wait, I’m confused about this now. What exactly was the cover-up? I’m looking as hard as I can to see it, reading between each line I can, but it is no where to be found. The more I think of it the more it boggles my mind. There was an attack on a US diplomatic mission to Benghazi…four Americans were killed…the next day President Obama spoke about it openly…what did he say?

TRANSCRIPT OF OBAMA SPEECH:

“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed were our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.”

…

“It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.”

…

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

OK yeah so he openly spoke about it, but where the hell is the cover-up part? What are John McCain and the GOP saying about the Obama Administration? As I searched for this answer I found a lovely piece at www.breitbart.com which features quotes from Bret Baier of the Fox News Network. “Oh boy,” I thought.

So it turns out that this cover-up the GOP and right-winged talking heads are going on about is that the attack was actually a terrorist attack and that the President is trying to cover it up. But wait a second…did Obama say “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”? Is it not clear that he is saying in this very sentence that the attack against US diplomats in Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack? Not according to Bret Baier of Fox News, no.

As I said, I found this little piece from an article Bret wrote and posted on his own website. If you’re familiar with Faux News you can smell the BS spin job they use to try to say that President Obama is covering up the fact that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Can you smell it? It smells like ‘Pure Grade A 100% Faux News Bullshit’. The spin tactic being used here is so out in the open and overt that a five year old could point it out.

First off, let’s go into this article that I found. It’s actually about Faux News man Bret Baier who says that he has proof that Obama is covering up the fact that the Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack. He states that a CBS interview with the President was recorded in October in which this was said:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.


He then goes on to say that the recording wasn’t aired for more than six weeks and that they still failed to air the interview even when questions about the incident were being raised during the second presidential debate. As I read, the author states that when asked if the Benghazi attack was in fact a terrorist attack the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and spoke for Obama falsely stating that Obama in fact called it an act of terror on September 12^th 2012 at his Rose Garden interview.

Falsely stated? How did the moderator falsely state that Obama called the act an act of terror when he did in fact say it was an act of terror? The author goes on to make the argument that if this didn’t happen and the moderator didn’t step in and lie for Obama that Romney would have won the debate, and that CBS withheld this interview to assist President Obama cover-up any dishonesty about the attacks and assist him in his reelection campaign.   

So here is the spin. Obama says in his Rose Garden interview that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” essential labeling the attack as a terror attack. It’s not so much because he said it was an act of terror but because he can’t prove it’s an act of terror, and the GOP is using this as an excuse to call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration. Merely because there are different people with different opinions on what actually happened in Benghazi the right-wing political machine is using the incident to call the Obama Administration into question about an alleged cover-up on whether or not the attack was terrorist in nature or not. If Obama says in a speech that terror will never shake our resolve than isn’t it clear he is just covering his ass on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t he think to himself, “Well we don’t know if this is a terror attack yet, but either way terror will not shake us”? I am wouldn’t that be a very poignant thing to say to keep our spirits up? No, instead the GOP wants to try to call Obama a liar because there were conflicting reports on whether or not it was a terrorist attack and because he didn’t have to answer his question at the debate.

But the truth is simple, if Obama had come out during the debate and said, “Yes, terrorists did in fact attack a US Diplomatic mission to Benghazi” the Romney campaign would have turned right around and said, “See? There was a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and Obama never saved them. He is weak against terror.” This is just another use of political spin and word play and they know it.

Word play and semantics are being used here heavily and lets face it they are simple tactics to use and they work for any argument you are in. You just have to change a word or the meaning or a word to make your argument. It’s not ‘Gun Control’ it’s ‘Preventative measures against violent crimes’, it’s not a ‘job’ it’s a ‘career’, don’t say the word ‘compromise’, don’t say ‘capitalism’ say ‘free economic market’, don’t say ‘taxes the rich’ say ‘takes from the rich’, they are not ‘middle class’ they are ‘hardworking tax payers’, ‘government spending’ is ‘waste’, ‘entrepreneur’ is ‘job creator’. And in this case we can also define what these are based on who is currently in office, Republican or Democrat.

And in this case of the Benghazi Terror Attack Cover-up the word terrorism is now redefined. You see if Bush were in office this case would be easy, it would be an act of terror, plain and simple, no need for investigation. Why? Because it happened to Americans in a foreign country, the attackers were Muslim (or possibly Muslim) and it happened AFTER 9/11/01. See that? Those are the ingredients for terror under Bush's watch. But the Republicans are willing to change their view when it's a Democrat in office. Now the definition has changed and we should investigate this to see if it was a terror attack, because terror attacks are so deeply thought out and largely complex and don't require just a few Americans to die by the hands of foreigners in a land where maybe there are terrorists. You see now for a terror attack to be considered a terror attack one needs to form a terror group and intentionally attack American interests.

So as you can see, he Republicans have a back up plan for just in case not all of their criterion are met for a terrorist attack. See if there is no terror group that comes out and takes responsibility the right-wingers can say, “Oh see this doesn't fit the bill of what we know as a terror attack. This Benghazi thing was just some protest that went violent and unfortunately some Americans got caught up in it and were killed.” And BOOM, just like that Obama’s image is changed. He isn’t a guy who is weak on terror, he’s a liar who called a protest riot a terrorist attack. And how can the American people trust a president who can't tell the difference between a protest riot and a terrorist attack?

As usual I had a hard time wondering what the right-wingers are trying to get at. Are they trying to say that Obama is covering up the fact the the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, or are they are calling him a liar for calling it an attack. They can go either way with this issue and like all politics it is bunk. We shouldn't be worrying about whether or not it's a terrorist act by a politicians definition or not
  Let’s take time to step away from the TV for a moment and make our own decision without some talking head political pundit or politician. Lets think about the word terror and what it means, because in my view any act of violence is an act or terror. Violence is terrible, terrifying, and for lack of a better word, terror. Terror has no exact definition unless the word is being used for political gain. War is terror, being mugged is terror, flying a plane into a building is terror, and getting caught up in a violent riot is terror. It’s not that complicated folks, all of these things are terror so don't let the right-wing media change your view on what terror actually is. 


SOURCES: 

www.breitbart.com Proof Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror CBS Covered-Up

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (VIDEO)

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (TRANSCRIPT)

Re-Election 2012 Rant

I have to admit that November 6^th was a very scary day for me. November 6^th was the day we either progressed as a nation and moved forward or set back the clock fifty or so years back into the past. No, November 6^th was not the day that Marty McFly came to us in a silver Delorian as prophesied to either take us “Back to the Future” or leave us stranded in 1955. It was Election Day 2012 and as a nation we all came together and voted on a multitude of issues including the big one, who would be our president. This was scary of course because for the presidential race we had to choose from a man we have known for four years that we sort of like (but lets be honest he hasn’t made us too happy lately), and a man who believes that his underwear is magic.

I was sitting in front of my computer all day anxiously awaiting the results, counting down each electoral vote as our county’s fate hanged in the balance of each one. Imagine the horror, I thought, the horror of a Romney America. Roe V. Wade over-turned, gay rights ignored (same-sex marriage federally banned, the reinstatement of DADT), civil rights trampled, women being on the bottom rung of corporate America, creationism being taught in public schools as science, religious zealotries, etc. It was very scary to think of and my heart pounded the whole night.

But thankfully the American people can be trusted to know what is best for themselves and they have voted to keep Obama in office for another four years essentially saying, “we don’t want a religious fanatic in the white house, thank you.” When I saw the electoral votes for Obama when he won I was relieved at first, and then I thought to myself, “Don’t fuck it up, man. We’re counting on you.”

But truth be told not too much has been happening with Obama as president. We all voted for him in 2008 with high hopes and dreams because we thought he was pro gay marriage and pro universal healthcare and that he would pull us out of all conflicts. When he was elected he really pissed us off big time, enough for liberal commentator Rachel Maddow to take shots at him on her show on MSNBC back in 2009 when he said that he did not campaign on a public option for healthcare. Maddow went right to the video clips of him doing what; campaigning on a public option for healthcare. As far as gay rights go…well we must have had pied eyed dreams of the future that blinded us because Obama said back in 2008 that he was against gay marriage. I guess we just really wanted a democrat in office so badly that we were willing to make up stories in our mind (Yes, the 8 years spent with George W. Bush was enough to drive us that crazy). And sure, Obama did propose a plan to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it really wasn’t what a lot of us were thinking. But then again none of us regular folk can truly understand the complexities of withdrawing an entire military operation out of two counties, so who are we to judge? But then there is Libya. Who said Obama was against conflict? Did we have any right to be there? No. Why we were there beats the hell out of me.

Obama sure played his cards right politically though. When it came time he told all of us that he had a sudden change in heart and decided that homosexuals should have the right to marry one another and put his support into same-sex marriage. BOOM. If he didn’t have the gay vote then, he had it after saying that, and just months before the election too. He really started to do a lot more things once it got closer to election time, but lets remember that there are a lot of other tasks that the president completes on a daily basis that we really just don’t know about.

Mitt Romney would have certainly set this country back fifty years. No need for Marty McFly’s time traveling Delorian, Mitt Romney would have done it for us himself and with our own money too. Which is great really that is if you’re an out of touch, uneducated religious jerk that wants to go back to the days when homosexuals were unheard of or were arrested for public displays of affection, you think that life is just like “Leave it to Beaver”, and before America stopped being a “Christian Nation”. Back to the days where it was ok to look the other way and act like nothing else ever happened, boys only liked girls, Americans could never be wrong, women stayed at home and cooked and cleaned, and it was socially acceptable to call a black man a nigger, to his face, then order him to do something for you.

Here is why I don’t like Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney is in fact a religious zealot, as are most Mormons, he is against gay marriage and women’s rights because he believes they go against God’s wishes and thus those ideas unprogressive and in actuality set us back. That is how he would like us to see things, and by God he sure is going to make sure we do them, otherwise God’s actions against us as a nation (or him) may be severe.

Many years ago after the Mormon religion settled in Utah it was petitioning the US government to join the Union; however this never happened right away as the US government did not want Utah in the Union because the territory was being run as a theocracy, which obviously goes against what America actually stands for. Now imagine one of these people as President of the United States and think of what they would do. These people are so hell bent on making others follow suit to them the last thing they need is a man in their congregation who is president of the nation.

Romney actually believes in this Mormon dogma and even believes that the underwear he wears under his suit is actually more effective than a suit of armor and will protect him. This is another reason why a Romney presidency scares the hell out of me. I think this country needs a leader who is rational, not one who believes his underwear is magic and has the blessing of God himself.

When it comes to religion and the nation what would Romney have done to us in the long run? We would become a theocracy very quickly and I believe that hatred toward other religious groups within our own nation would grow as our own president tells the world that we are a Christian nation and we follow the only true religion, and all other religions are false, essentially persecuting all other religions. That right there is enough for some other religiously fanatic countries to want to terrorize us even more, but Romney would use that to his advantage saying, “See all these other people are trying to persecute us, we must fight back!” This religious dogma has to go.

Then there is the all too familiar argument that Obama is actually a radical Muslim and that he is trying to change the very foundation of America. But how is he trying to do that? Has he made any speeches decreeing that the country is a Muslim nation? What has Obama done that would prove these people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck correct? How is Obamacare or gay marriage or civil rights or equal pay and fair taxes a socialist plot to take over the country? People like to say that Obama has made sweeping reforms to this nation which have completely change us but what are those reforms and how are they changing us? When did these things happen and can any of these people actually cite one of these happenings? When we have a new president changes are always made. Do you think in 1990 we were the same country we were back in 1950? Hell no. Democrats and republicans alike have changed and shaped this country far beyond what it used to be, and each time it happens there is always someone on the opposing side saying, “Oh my God, he’s changing the very fabric of our society!” The reason it’s a big deal now though is because our president isn’t just any man, oh no. He’s a black man, and his father was from Kenya, and he was born somewhere other than mainland America, and when he was a child he went to a Madrassa (Muslim school), and the number one reason he isn’t just any man is simply because of his name: Barrack Hussein Obama.

I’m glad that the people of this nation are awake enough to see this, because this recent election really showed how Americans are starting to pay attention that they know what direction this country needs to go in. Romney said that the only reason Obama won was because of the gifts he gave to certain constituents like young and minority voters. What gifts? Oh I know what gifts Mr. Romney means, he means human rights, equal opportunity for all and a place to live where I don’t have to be harassed and told how to live by religious zealots.

I don’t think Obama is doing a great job, nor has he made me really happy with the way he has been playing politics. But I can say this, he is much better than Romney. Wow, I really hope for our country’s sake that the Republican Party gets back in touch with reality.

Rockupy Everett: The Concert In Front of the Snohomish County Courthouse Plaza

Occupy Everett has been going on for almost a month now and on Saturday December 3rd the movement held a small gathering and concert opened to all who wanted to join in. There were multiple performers, including Peter Ali and Jim Page. The greatest part of the whole event was one Dorli Rainey, the 84 year old lady who was pepper sprayed in Seattle during the Occupy Seattle movement.

The Occupy Everett movement is indeed a small one, but none the less an important one. I spoke to a few members and got a little bit of history regarding the movement here Everett. I was told that the Occupy Everett movement was started in response to the Occupy Seattle fiasco that occurred (the one in which a pregnant woman and Dorli Rainey were pepper sprayed by police). The leadership is in constant contact with Snohomish County officials and regularly attends their meetings where they make deals and learn about new regulations that the county makes for the occupiers to follow while they camp out in front of the administration building.

The County made a deal with the Occupy Everett leadership, and they gave the occupiers a permit to camp out in front of the administration building, a permit which never expires so long as the occupiers follow certain regulations like keeping the area clean and free of hazardous materials and obstructions. For instance, one of the regulations is the prohibition of wooden structures on the camp because they are considered a fire hazard. This has upset most occupiers many because it rains here a lot, and the occupiers were using wooden pallets to set their sleeping arrangements on so they are raised off of the ground and won’t get wet. As these pallets are wooden structures they are banned.

The occupiers here in Everett have access to two porta-potties in the camp as well. One is paid for by the county and the other is paid for by the occupiers as per an agreement that was struck with the occupy leadership and the county. Although this had caused a twist in the panties of some Everett residents (I’m assuming their Republicans) who don’t believe that their tax dollars should be used to supply the occupiers with any amenities. The one porta-potty that is being paid for by the county has apparently been there since the beginning, but the funny thing is that it’s not being used by just the occupiers there on the scene. Comcast Arena is located not far away, and many occupiers have seen Comcast workers using the porta-potty as well and say they have always used said amenity.

Aside from “pottygate” the occupiers assured me that everything is well in their little encampment. They keep the area clean, they follow the regulations imposed on them by the county, the police and deputies have been friendly (to the extent that they just don’t make contact the occupiers) and no one has been heckled or treated poorly in anyway.

This concert event did have a police presence, but it was a small one as the event itself wasn’t relatively large (at least compared to it’s cousins like Occupy Seattle, Oakland, etc). I saw at most three sheriff’s deputies overlooking the event and looking rather bored with the orders they were given.

There was music at this event of course, and even coffee which was free for all people who were attending the event. There were also a few speeches and attendees were encouraged to come up on stage and speak their mind throughout the event. Performers were playing guitars, drums, and flutes and over all they were all very nice. But as I said, the main event was the anxiously awaited speech that was going to be given by Dorli Rainey herself.

For those who don’t remember or follow the news, Dorli is being called the “new face of the occupy movement” because of what happened to her when police tried to break up the Occupy Seattle movement back in mid November. When she stood up on the stage you could see just how small she is, and how much of an imposing and threatening person she is not. She spoke for a short time and talked about how she gets letters, emails, and phone calls from all across the United States and the world. In one letter she received came from Vienna, in which the writer called her a hero. She wanted to make it clear to everyone at the concert that she was not a hero, and went on to say that she was just “in the right spot at the right time”.

Dorli went on to say that the Occupy movement is the biggest movement she has ever been apart of. Bigger than the civil rights movements, the women’s rights movements, and the anti-Vietnam War movement. She assured the attendees that the Occupy movement was growing larger and larger and wasn’t going to go away anytime soon, and that she was going to continue to participate. One thing she did say which I had trouble agreeing with was “the police aren’t your friend”. I had to disagree, but I had to agree with other parts of her speech regarding the police. It’s obvious that the occupiers don’t like the police at all because of the dispersals, the beatings, the arrests, and of course the indiscriminate use of pepper spray. The thing I agreed with the most about her talk on the police was that since 9/11 the police forces across America have changed forever as they are being militarized and are used against the people in the name of freedom and safety.

All in all, the event was wonderful. It was fun, exciting, and most importantly it was safe. Dorli Rainey’s words are true in that the Occupy movement isn’t going anywhere, and that it is growing day by day.

They are the 99%, as well as you. The cops are the 99%. Other civil workers are the 99%. Even the Republican who lives down the street from you is part of the 99%. It’s time we all realized this, came together and fought against these bankers and corporations that are destroying America and turning our country into a police state. It’s time the workers, the welfare recipients, the civil servants, the unions, the police, and other stand up to these banks and corporations and tell them “we are the 99% and our voices will be heard. You will not buy us out!”

RELATED LINKS:

Occupy Everett Group Has Permit to Camp

Keith Olbermann: Dorli Rainey Interview

Occupy Everett Facebook Page

Penn State Scandal: Why Joe Paterno Should Be Punished

It’s been a crazy few months for the United States. The Republican Presidential hopefuls are all debating for their party’s nomination, the Occupy Wall Street (and other Occupy movement itself) is in full swing and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, and the Penn State scandal is all over our TV screens as Penn State students are protesting against the firing of Joe Paterno. The latter is what I will be writing about tonight.

Back in 2002 a man walked into the Penn State showers only to find one Jerry Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy. Instead of calling the police and/or stopping the rape himself he reported the incident to Joe Paterno, the Penn State head football coach. After hearing the news of this incident you would think he would have called the police or at least confronted Sandusky and fired him and/or forced him to retire. But no, apparently Paterno thought that the best punishment would be to revoke his locker room and shower privileges and never speak of the incident again.

Well at the beginning of the month Jerry Sandusky was finally arrested for sexually abusing multiple young boys from his charity “The Second Mile”. News got out to the public that not only has Sandusky been abusing children for almost a decade but that Joe Paterno and others on the Penn State football staff knew of the abuse and didn’t do anything about it. As a result the Penn State Board of Trustees fired Paterno for trying to cover up this horrible crime. The Penn State students did not like this idea.

After Paterno was fired many students took to the streets and protested (or rioted, rather) the firing of Paterno. They turned over a news van and even threw objects at police officers. The students said that they believe that the firing of Joe Paterno over this situation is horrible because he has done so much for Penn State’s football program and thus he should be allowed to keep his job.

The students are not the only ones who believe this, as just recently football hall of famer and Penn State great Franco Harris is releasing statements saying that he stands beside his former coach Joe Paterno and believes that his firing was unjust.

From the article:

"I feel that the board made a bad decision in letting Joe Paterno go," said Harris, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. "I'm very disappointed in their decision. I thought they showed no courage, not to back someone who really needed it at the time. They were saying the football program under Joe was at fault.

"They really wouldn't give a reason. They're linking the football program to the scandal and, possibly, the cover up. That's very disturbing to me. ... I think there should be no connection to the football program, only in the case that it happened at the football building with an ex-coach.”

For one, the football program isn’t being linked to the scandal. It wasn’t the football program who raped and then tried to cover up the abuse of several young boys. But people that are a part of the football program (Sandusky, Paterno) are linked to the scandal because one of them raped young boys and the other one didn’t report it to the proper authorities.

Jon Stewart made the best point I think I have ever heard.

From the clip:

“I guess it’s pretty hard for you to believe that this guy you think is infallible and this program you think is sacred could hide such heinous activities, but there is some president for that (the catholic church). And just like with the Catholic Church no one is trying to take away your religion, in this case football, they’re just trying to bring some accountability to a pope and some of his cardinals who fucked up. So don’t worry, on Saturday you’ll still get to go to services against Nebraska, no one’s going to take that away because obviously you’re young, and that would be a traumatic experience. And we wouldn’t want that memory to scar you for life.”

The case for firing Paterno is simple. He technically did something illegal and he should be held accountable for it legally. He covered up a crime. He knew Sandusky was raping young boys (in the locker room showers of Penn State) and the only thing he did was try to stop it from happening on his turf by revoking Sandusky’s locker room and shower privileges. What he should have done was fired Sandusky, or forced him to retire, or (hey this is an interesting concept) reported Sandusky to the police for raping young boys.

The reason for this cathartic outcry for Paterno from Penn State students is simple. Penn State’s football program brings in millions of dollars for the school. As one student said on the news, “he’s done so much for this school.” But I’m sorry, just because you have done so much for the school and the football team should not exonerate you from covering up such a crime. Thank about it this way, if you knew that someone that worked under you was raping little boys would you just sweep it under the rug? And if you would, where the hell are your morals and ethics? If I caught someone I worked with raping young boys I would report them to the police immediately.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Drug Testing Those on Welfare: A Wasteful and Stigmatizing Tactic.

During the summer, the state of Florida made it law that anyone applying for welfare benefits had to take a drug test before receiving said benefits. If you were applying for welfare you are required to pay for the drug test first. If you pass you are reimbursed for the test and you can receive the benefits. If you do not pass you are denied the benefits for a year, then you can retake the test and get your benefits if you come up negative.

This idea is becoming very popular among Americans who believe that drug testing welfare recipients will cut back on waste and stop the poor from spending their welfare money on illegal drugs. The reasoning behind this is that those who are currently on welfare will have to be drug tested, and if they are positive then the benefits are taken away, thus the ex-recipient will no longer receive money to spend on illegal drugs and the money saved can go to someone who is more deserving.

“Why should my tax dollars go to someone who is just going to buy drugs with it?”

This idea is expanding as well. Some states are considering mandatory drug testing for unemployed individuals who are applying for unemployment benefits, as well as drug testing for people who are participating in state job-training programs. These ideas are appealing to people and seem to be overwhelmingly supported.

But the truth is that mandatory drug testing for people applying for or already on welfare doesn’t do what supporters think it does. It is in actually wasteful, and more importantly can be unconstitutional.

Supporters highly believe that large numbers of people who use drugs go on to welfare to pay for their drug habit. When the law was enacted in Florida 38 out of 40 people who were first drug tested came up negative. That means only 2 came up positive for drug use, and 1 of those 2 individuals is appealing the results.

Why is this law so bad? Well for one it stigmatizes the poor. The idea that the majority of people on welfare are drug users that use their welfare money to buy illegal drugs only supports the stereotype that anyone who doesn’t make a lot of money is automatically a drug abuser. Also, it’s not very cost effective for the state either. Drug testing is thought of as a great way to save tax dollars, but that’s not factual. Think about it. In Florida if each drug test costs (lets assume in lowest terms) $50 and the state has to pay $50 back to the 38 people who passed their drug test then that means the state has just lost $1,900. That means the state only made $100 dollars from the two individuals who did not pass their drug test.

Now think of it on a much larger scale. If 100,000 people apply for welfare and are drug tested, and only 5% do not pass that means 95,000 people have to be reimbursed $50. That’s $4,750,000 that the state now has to repay to those who passed the test just to prevent 5,000 people from receiving welfare benefits. The state has only made $250,000 off of those who did not pass which means the state has actually paid back $4,500,000. But it’s worth it for so little revenue...right?

Wrong.

A study conducted back in 1996 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism showed that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal drug use by those on welfare and those who are not on welfare. Another study showed that 70% of people between the ages of 18 and 49 use illegal drugs and are employed full time.

But let’s also take something else into consideration; the amount of time and money that is going to be wasted in court fighting this new law. The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can legally conduct, and drug tests are considered a type of search. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that drug testing was an unreasonable search and that the state can only conduct drug tests in exceptional cases when the safety of the public is an issue. Bus and train operators should be drug tested because their job requires them to safely transport the public. And there is no real safety reason for drug testing welfare applicants, thus the law is unfair, wasteful, and more importantly unconstitutional.

The truth is that this law is aimed at stigmatizing the poor during times of economic hardships. Think about it, if the state of Florida was seriously concerned about drug use they would implement stricter laws regarding illegal drugs that are aimed at the entire population, and not just a certain class of people.

The idea that this laws saves tax dollars and curbs illegal drug use is bunk. You’re concerned that your tax money will be going to a small percentage of people who may or may not use the money on drugs. And now you’re paying for drug tests for the higher percentage of individuals who pass.

Wasteful.

I understand fully that no one wants their tax money going to pay for someone's drug habit, I mean who would? Aside from the fact that we don't want to be enabling someone's drug habits, we also feel that welfare recipients should be doing something useful with the money we give to them like buying food and clothing and putting a roof over their head. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for people using drugs on welfare money. I just think that if you want to curb drug use or stop this kind of thing you should make stronger laws against illegal drugs that apply to everyone. Instead of doing that the state of Florida has gone into an all out class war.

Here's some more food for thought for you. It only takes 30-40 days of not smoking marijuana for a marijuana user to pass a drug test. It only takes a few days to a week for crack and meth users to pass a drug test, and people who abuse prescription drugs only have to stop for a few days for their systems to be clean as well. So how does this law work when all a drug user needs to do is discontinue using drugs for a short time so they can pass a test (a test that your state will have to reimburse the money on) and then start using again once they receive their welfare money (money that YOU will technically be giving them)?

This law makes no sense.

I know this blog is late in being posted as the law was enacted during the summer. I had to write it now because I see this poll being passed around Facebook asking people if they believe drug testing welfare recipients is a good idea. The results are an overwhelming “yes” vote. I believe this is because the majority of people believe the stereotype that most people on welfare are drug users who can’t get their life together, or believe that drug testing is an effective way to make sure deserving people get welfare money rather than undeserving and that this will save money for the state.