Day After the SOTU Thoughts

Remember the line in Independence Day when Margaret Colin's character is reading to the President in one of the first scenes? She's reading aloud a negative review of President Whitmore's own SOTU Address that says something like, "...addressing Congress, Whitmore seems less like the President and more like the orphan child Oliver asking, 'please sir, I'd like some more.'"

After watching and re-watching on various channels, I have to say honestly, that's exactly how I felt about how our President sounded. The word that immediately came to mind was: "Appeasement", which infuriates me. I suspect his final speech may have been changed when it was noted that Paul Ryan would be the Republican delivering the Rebuttal. Why should that affect the speech? Because Ryan is the House Budget Committee Chairman and the Republicans just passed a rules resolution giving him unilateral authority over spending! Naturally he's going to say - hello - NO to every piece of legislation from Obama that requires spending. BTW: to my knowledge (and according to everyone on the news, including the Republicans) giving ONE person full discretion over spending has never been done before. Hence, to me, our President sounded more like a man ready to beg for crumbs than a man ready to do battle to save Social Security, Medicare, our environment and even Health Care Reform. It was the speech of a man willing to compromise, in part to appease Ryan and, naturally, to ensure a 2nd term.

And I just don't get it - any of it.

I also don't get (well, I do, but no one believes the truth) the sudden desire by the Republican Party to do away with SS and Medicare and why the Democrats aren't using that to ensure victory in 2012 as opposed to begging compromising up the kazoo. And remember, the Republicans aren't talking about just fixing the problems within both programs, no, they want to dismantle them completely (vouchers for medicare, my foot!) But no one seems to get that either or that, for GOD'S SAKE, the only thing keeping 40% of those over 65 (and/or disabled) from complete and abject poverty is SS!

I'd actually love to know how many Americans actually believe those 40% deserve to be poor because they're over 65 (and/or disabled) and obviously failed to properly prepare for the future. Does most of America feel that way? And if not, why aren't we yelling from the rooftops, demonstrating in front of Congress every day of the week? Why aren't we writing, calling and emailing? And if we do believe it's their fault - why do we believe it? After all, how many Americans saw their entire pension plan disappear in the last few years as corporations cheated and stole their retirement money? How many Americans saw their entire future monies disappear when Wall Street panicked and crashed? Why can't Americans understand this type of thing is exactly WHY President Roosevelt signed the OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or RSDI as it was also called, for 'Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance') into law back in '35 as part of the New Deal?

He saw what happened in '29, knew that it wasn't laziness that put so many good people out into the streets and he knew - KNEW - it could and would happen again and, more importantly, understood, within his frame of reference at the time, that it could happen to anyone. He understood that disasters, illnesses, and shoddy business practices (not to mention illegal) could and would destroy private pension plans. So tell me, how is it he could foresee these future disasters and mandate a safety net, but today's America can't or won't?

How is it he understood that ONE horrific illness, even when an individual was covered by insurance, could still wipe out a family's entire life-savings, but  the Americans of today can't, even though it's happening every day? Or that as a result of losing everything, seniors would be left without medical coverage due to their age? That insurance companies have no heart for anything but a healthy bottom line?

I realize SS and Medicare aren't perfect, but they're also two of the most misunderstood 'laws' we have, laws that have changed so many times, with each party and their agendas mandating the changes, that it's head-spinning. Fortunately, most of the changes were for the good (after all, when first signed into law, it was for MEN only - white men - which is why I used the phrase 'frame of reference' earlier for Roosevelt). I also have to say admit that I don't understand how, if it's still a 'pay as you go' plan and employees are still paying into it, that by 2017, payroll tax revenue will no longer be able to sustain it. Why is that??? Would it last longer if unemployment weren't so high? And if so, significantly higher? Doubtful. So why? What's changing internally?

I also wonder why the numerous disasters we've experienced in just the last 10 years aren't being mentioned by ANYONE as a major contributor to the financial trouble we're in (and I include 911 in that list), all of which are still affecting this nation in more ways than most Americans bother to find out about. Katrina, just on the surface, cost $110 billion in damages (btw: Republicans love to state how fraudulent cases cost us a big chunk of that, but in point of fact, fraud resulted in a little over $1 billion. Guess that means the bulk still rests on Katrina, the bitch! *snigger*), and 400,000 jobs were lost - many of which never reappeared. The BP oil leak, just in clean-up costs alone, are estimated at $760 million, but the damage to the coast? The lost jobs? The long term monetary/economic/ecological effect? 

I dare you to find any kind of real effort to give honest estimations - the truth would damage too many high powered folks, but we all have to know in our hearts that the effects now - and in the future - will be horrendous, long-reaching and, if BP doesn't eventually declare bankruptcy, leave us to take on the bulk of the burden.

I also wonder when there's a major fire or flood and hundreds of homes and acres of land are lost, what Americans think happens afterward? What do they think the costs are, insurance wise, medically, and so forth? Do we think once the 'fire' is out, all is well? That the costs of putting out those fires or cleaning up after the floods isn't in the millions and sometimes billions? Who do Americans think are paying for the Fire Departments and the costs accrued? And where does America think the money will come from to PAY those bills? Payroll, equipment, and health issues that go beyond insurance? And how much are we responsible for the current state of affairs, financially speaking? Like how we use those little plastic things in our wallets and the loans we think we can handle, but hey, who could know Joe would get cancer and our insurance wouldn't cover the treatment he needed so we had to...or Harriet didn't get the promotion we planned on...or college tuition was higher than anticipated... or...yeah, you get the idea. And does America really believe that ONE man, in less than 2 years, could get us where we are now? Do we not remember WHY he had to bail out Wall Street and that the problem didn't occur overnight? Does everyone really think that on December 31, 2008, all was well, but by the end of January, 2009, we were headed straight for Hell?

Okay, it's "In conclusion" time, because by now, anyone reading is beyond bored *g* so I'll end with Appeasement as my final word on the SOTU and for we, the American people, I think I'll say we're half-way between total apathy and complete hatred fueled by fear, neither of which will get the job done. :( 

Politics and The Art of

Blackmail Compromise in action!

So the rich get their tax cuts extended, but is that all there is to the story? Not likely. No, I suspect a lot of backroom hardball is behind Obama's allowing the tax cut extensions even though he was heartily against them.

Here's how I see it:

Through the art of blackmail bargaining, the Republicans got:

1. The money for themselves (after all, they're part of the 'rich' that benefited), their friends and their rich contributors thanks to the tax cut extension
2. And the murder of the Dream Act killed

Both of the above were their two biggies (God forbid the richest should lose more of their riches - OR - that any illegal immigrants should be allowed relief in the form of citizenship) and all they had to do - was what they'd planned to do all along:

1. Vote to extend Unemployment benefits
2. Vote to repeal DADT

Am I happy?

Not so much. I'm no longer a Democrat (remember, I'm now a member of the new Common Sense Party (or CSP) and as such, I supported:

1. The end to the tax cut for the richest (which, with its extension, will now add $700 billion to the Nation's debt)
2. The much needed extension of unemployment benefits (which is NOT an entitlement, nor something given to lazy people who don't want to work, but rather something desperately needed due to our tanked economy and an unemployment rate that's now 9.6 compared to 4.9 of just a year ago)
3. The Dream Act, which was an excellent stepping stone to real Immigration reform, not to mention demonstrating the fact that America has a heart (in case you're not sure, the Dream Act provided legal residency to young people who came to the United States illegally before age 16 but have since graduated from high school, completed two years of college - or military service - and had no criminal record) and its death kills any chance for real Immigration Reform for Obama - including reforms that would have made even Republicans happy.
4. Yep, strong supporter of repealing DADT as previous posts have shown.

IMHO, none of the above are brain-stretchers. None of them should have been points of contention but rather obvious answers to real problems. And you know what's even worse? The fact that I suspect Obama also gave up the 911 First Responders bill in order to get 2 out 4 of the above, which means in reality, by succumbing to blackmail bargaining, he lost three key items in order to gain two. That's beginners politics as opposed to the strong, experienced politics we need. But America could have had all four of the above plus the First Responders Bill (check out the Daily Show (video 1) to find out more about the bill, including video 2) thanks to a little something called 'budget reconciliation' - a tool that's been used very effectively in the past to by-pass the filibuster when cloture was impossible due to not having the necessary 60 votes (as happened with the addition of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate).

PS: If you're angry about the death of the First Responders Bill, you can help by being part of the largest 'retweet' in the nation. Go here and retweet the 14th tweet down, which reads: "make this the biggest national retweet ever! Demand the James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill be passed before 12/31/10! NO MORE FILIBUSTERS!"

Today, everyone is talking about - and cheering - the repeal of DADT - and yet, the First Responders to 911 are dying and we're doing nothing about it but giving them the flim-flam. Vets (especially Desert Storm vets) have already been through this; the whole ignoring the cancers and other ailments that were a direct result of being exposed to toxins during Desert Storm and, yet, not a peep from anyone but Jon Stewart about the death of this critically needed bill.


YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT - you can retweet it, then start calling, emailing and writing your Congressperson - and get your friends to do the same. NOW.

A short Thanksgiving thought about DADT

I'm thankful on this day of Thanksgiving for every military personnel on US soil or foreign soil, who protects us - with their lives if necessary. And for that reason, I find it important to discuss DADT on this day of thanks (because yes, some of those men and women in uniform are gay).

The politicians in Washington (our President included) want us to believe that it's vital we have all the information from the Pentagon Report on the effects of gays in the military before repealing DADT. I have one word for that:

Hogwash.

Why hogwash? Simple. The same tactic was utilized before allowing blacks to serve in the same units with whites - and again when deciding if women should be allowed to fight side-by-side with their male counterparts. I can actually understand how waiting for a report from the Pentagon would be necessary for the above as those represented major changes. Yes, blacks were in the service, but in separate units and quarters. Women served too but either as 'office' personnel, or within the medical field, so allowing them to actually serve side-by-side with men (and white men), to allow them into a military academy, and into battle - altogether, as one cohesive unit, yeah,that was a major change.

And yes, I can hear you now: "But so is having gays in the military".

Wrong.

You see, it's damn hard to hide the fact that you're black or a female, so unless I lived in a parallel universe where, for instance, gender wasn't obvious, then there's no way I could join the military now and simply not reveal the fact that I was female. But you see, gays are already working side-by-side with their fellow soldiers - and if you think many don't know it, don't know who those gay soldiers or officers are, well, there's a place called Fantasyland and you might just live there.

Now let me say this again:

GAYS ARE ALREADY IN THE MILITARY

There are already seamen who are gay, soldiers who are gay, pilots who are gay and big, buff Marines who are gay. There are already gay officers. All of them working, sleeping, eating, showering, and fighting right next to their straight counterparts. And you know what? They have been - from day one. 

So really, this particular version of the famous "Pentagon Report" on how the military will handle this particular so-called 'minority' in its oh, so precious ranks is far less important than in the past. In fact - it's ludicrous. 

Am I saying there won't be problems when some soldiers actually know who the gays are, or find out that they've been successfully following a gay leader for the last year? No. There will be, just as there were issues when blacks were finally permitted to serve with whites instead of in the proverbial back of the bus. But the military survived - and thrived. 

And yes, there were major problems for women, especially when they dared to join the ranks of cadets in a military academy. But guess what? The military survived and many soldiers would say now that they can't imagine their world without that female soldier - or black - standing with them in battle. 

Soldiers - our military - are, for the most part, the brightest and the best. They hold honor high, sacrifice is a normal act and their courage, legendary. We do them a great disservice to believe that they won't be able to get past the discovery that the man or woman fighting beside them just happens to also be gay - anymore than fighting side-by-side with redheads, blondes (and blonds), Catholics, Jews, surfers, family men and women, single men and women, divorced soldiers, etc. So tell our politicians to get off the stupid dime and just end it. Stop looking for excuses, stop thinking less of our men and women in uniform who defend us daily - and just stop DADT.

Once and for all.

A Lesson on How Republicans Will Win

just took place on the Rachel Maddow Show a few minutes ago. She made the mistake of inviting Art Robinson (R-OR), a man who is running for office - for the first time - against Pete Defazio (D-OR) to be a guest. I can only assume that until the interview began, Rachel's only thought was, "At last, I actually have another Republican to interview!". Based on her interview with Rand Paul, she should have known better. And based on the results of this interview, Mr. Robinson was not only well-coached, but his mind and opinions on and of Ms. Maddow were already well set, leaving no room for common respect, truth, or courtesy.

But then, the one thing Republicans do well is take a 3 minute interview, turn it into 10, and not allow the interviewer to get a word in edgewise, sidewise, or any other way. In this case, Robinson rarely stopped the flow of useless rhetoric, utilizing words like "Liar, lying, lies", "sarcasm, sarcastic" and of course, control phrases to make us believe he wasn't being given a chance to speak (even though he never shut up), like, "It's your show", "You run the camera", etc.

And of course, if Ms. Maddow managed to actually get the phrase, "I just want to ask one question" in, Robinson simply started the spewing all over again, rarely allowing her to actually ask said question without immediately interrupting her by calling her a liar even though she was reading his OWN newsletter, his own words.

What was witnessed on Rachel's show were common tactics employed by politicians (on both sides) around the world, people who know how to take full advantage of an 'on-tv' interview by satellite, who know how to avoid actually dealing with real issues and answering honestly because being honest might lose them votes, not to mention an election. In the world of magicians, it's called 'misdirection' - and politicians do it so well.

Overall, these interviews are useless - but they can teach one thing: The person doing the spewing is not someone we want to vote for or know, or listen to or believe in any context - ever. I don't care if they're a Democrat, Republican or a Purple People Eater. 

Mr. Robinson, you're a coward.

And anyone who utilizes this type of interview tactic is also a coward and nothing more.

We have a PARTY NAME!

Yes, we do! We are now the Common Sense Party! YAY! So let's do our check-off list:

Party Name: YES (Common Sense Party)
Party Symbol: YES (the wolf)
Party Color: YES (purple)
Party Platform: Almost (any day now)

SPREAD THE WORD and JOIN THE COMMON SENSE PARTY!

...er...for now, you can join by simply following this blog. We're not that organized yet. :)

Figured out the answers to the questions

from this post?

Let's look at the questions again:

• Why would privatizing (meaning allowing a private *business* to take over) Social Security be a bad idea and who would benefit by private business taking over? (this is part of not only the Tea Party agenda but now on the newly released Republican agenda)

Answer:

Big Business would benefit. The insurance companies WOULD benefit. We'd all be at their mercy just as we are now, only now, so would seniors, the disabled and veterans. Religion might be the foundation of the Tea Party - and the Republicans who are running to jump on their bandwagon - but money is the grease that keeps the wheels moving and who has the big money? Yeah, big business.

• Why is something we PAY into - considered an entitlement? Is a paycheck earned for a hard day's work also an entitlement?

Answer:

No, of course our paycheck isn't an entitlement - it's earned. BUT, because the word 'entitlement' is one of the negative political words that the right loves to use when talking about minorities, they're using it now when speaking of Social Security. They want to evoke certain images in your brain - like illegal immigrants. By using the word, they draw a picture for you of people taking money, food and medicine out of YOUR mouth, YOUR life, but the truth is - you ARE entitled to the benefits that Social Security provides because YOU PAID FOR IT. And since we don't punish all of America just because a few are taking advantage, then damn it, get off the 'entitlement' crap and leave our Social Security alone. Instead, DEAL with those who are trying to abuse the system. 

• Why does being forced to use your Social Security benefits or Social Security Disability benefits (the ones you've paid into for years) - make you lazy?

Answer:

Same as above. It puts a vision in your mind of people the Right won't say out loud because it's politically incorrect - even for them - to describe these individuals. The word "Lazy" tries to force you to see ALL minorities in an unflattering light because they're counting on the fact that you WANT to. But come on, if you're disabled, can't work, and have NOTHING but your SSD, are you really lazy? If you're in pain and unable to do what you made you feel good, like working, making a living, supporting your family, are you lazy? And even now, when so many on SSD can't make ends meet - are they really lazy?

YES, the Tea Party wants to take all of this away from us because, according to them, it's only used by 'lazy minorities and illegal immigrants' and yet - at the same time, they want to payoff their 'employers' (not you, their constituents, but the guys paying their bills: Big Businesses) by privatizing it.

• Why are the hard-won rights of the Disabled a bad thing - and who would benefit by the loss of those rights? 

Answer:

Big Business profits. They'd no longer have to even consider you if you're disabled, even if your qualifications match the next best candidate. They could stop putting special parking slots aside and spending money on special ramps and restrooms. Dump these rights and Big Business saves big bucks while the disabled return to being the invisible. Imagine no longer being able to get that wheelchair up and onto the sidewalk? Or enter any building where the access is only ... STAIRS? I could go on, but if you have an ounce of intelligence, you've figured it out.

How do we stop all of this? How do we get Americans to see the truth when we know that just saying it proves nothing. So how 'bout research? How 'bout finding out WHO contributes to candidates? And how much? And what boards our candidates are on - or were on - before throwing their political hats into the ring? Check voting history. The internet is full of the truth - you just have to dig.

For instance, why is that Republicans were all for "pre-existing" conditions in the Health Reform Bill - and now want it gone? Who benefits by the removal of this protective aspect of the law? *taps chin* Mmmm...now who could it be....

Insurance companies???

Insurance companies who contribute huge amounts of money to certain Senators?

Check it out.

As predicted, DADT didn't cut the mustard

meaning that in spite of having a majority vote - they still didn't have the stupidly required 60 votes to pass the Defense bill that held the opportunity to eventually repeal DADT. This opened the door for McCain (who, before the Tea Party put his career in jeopardy, was in favor of the repeal) to filibuster. And in case you're low on how this works, a filibuster stops any chance to debate the amendment in question.

Of course, this was no surprise to me - as I said, I predicted it - but that doesn't mean there weren't a few surprises that bowled me over. For instance, the fact that an important Democratic vote was lost.

Can we say, "Harry Reid"? I thought we could.

His resounding vote of "NO!" is still being heard from one end of the country to the other (not to mention a couple of other supposedly shoe-in votes from both Democrats and Republicans).

Apparently, there were three primary reasons for the counted on Republicans who'd previously supported the repeal - became turncoats and voted against the bill today (thus allowing McCain who now can be called totally insane) to filibuster. Here are the top three reasons:

1. They wanted the chance to debate the issue
2. They wanted the military to have the opportunity to study how repealing DADT would affect the military
3. They didn't feel this bill was the appropriate bill for adding amendments

Sounds good, eh? *rolls eyes* Well, as the news media has pointed out over and over again tonight, and as anyone who Googles could find out, a filibuster actually STOPS any debate - so #1 is an outright lie.

Knowing that, one must ask: "Why don't they want the debate today?"

Hello? Can we say "Upcoming Primaries"? Can we say, "We don't have time for a debate, we have campaign calls to make and seats to win!"

Yeah, I thought you could.

#2 - Another outright lie. The Amendment does NOT repeal DADT, that's a misnomer deliberately utilized by the Republicans and believed by those who haven't done their research. The amendment was written so that the repeal could not go into effect until after the Pentagon published the results of their survey on how service members and their families view the change (that report is due in December). It also states that such a repeal can not take affect until after the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.

#3 - probably the most ridiculous lie of all. In every administration, and every year that the Defense Bill comes up for a vote, amendments are added (just like every other bill under the sun). And in most cases, those amendments have NOTHING to do with the bill itself. This tactic is used by both parties.

"You want my vote for Senate Bill #yadda yadda? Fine, just add this tiny little amendment and you've got my vote." 

Sound familiar? Of course it does. That's politics.

In 2005, Rep. Dennis Hastert threatened to hold up the Defense Bill unless an anti-immigration amendment was added. He did something similar in 2006, refusing to vote for the bill unless a federal court security bill was added. In 2004, Rep. Sen. Sam Brownback added an FCC amendment to the Defense Bill - one that would increase fines for indecent entertainment! Yeah, that one really belongs in a Defense Bill! (All these were looked up easily, btw).

And adding another "BTW": the discussion regarding repealing DADT in the bill isn't the only amendment that has the ire of the Republicans. In fact, the real reason for what happened today might just have more to do with something called the "Dream Act". And what is that? What, you've never heard of it?  Well, you see, the Dream Act establishes citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and then enroll in college or enlist in the military. Needless to say, the Republicans don't want it, but they're being fairly quiet because military experts agree that such an amendment would actually strengthen the military. The Department of Defense actually supports the Dream Act (just as most highly placed military leaders support the repeal of DADT).

Oh, it should be noted that the Democrats who became turncoats stated that their reason for voting 'no' was that clearer heads will prevail after the Mid-Term elections in November.

This is me - laughing - at their stupidity.

Small break for some applauding:

I would be remiss not to praise Lady Gaga while at the same time, weeping for the youth of our country who have far more to lose come November (and 2012) and yet who failed to express their views in these last months in order to be heard over the virulent spewing done by Tea Party candidates (combined with the sound of Moderate Republicans dropping their moderation in a heap on the floor so they might better jump on the TP bandwagon or get left behind altogether like their companions were in the primaries held so far this year).

And while applauding Lady Gaga, I have to hold my applause for President Obama - because he could stop all this crap right now. He could suspend any further dismissals by the military of gay personnel. He has that power. He could also take a much harder tack by use of 'reconciliation' to get what he needs, or be even more forceful by leaning on those Democrats who refuse to vote as needed. We're talking about Republicans who have made it very clear that they'll vote everything of Obama's down - everything. To me, that means it's gloves-off time for Obama. It's time for him to step up to the plate and start getting tough.

Yes, everyone is disgruntled, that can't be denied (well, except the rich who control our oil, drugs, banks, etc.), but is the current movement within the Republican party the answer to our problems?  If you're thinking yes - well, you live in Fantasyland.

On the other hand, maybe you'd enjoy living in the past - as in centuries past. Maybe you'd prefer a world that wouldn't understand the Constitution if it were written by a five-year old in crayons.

God and Country sound so good, don't they? And yes, most of our founding fathers believed in God; trusted in God, because if they didn't,  God wouldn't be a part of everything from the wording on our money to our Pledge of Allegiance. BUT - the difference is, our [1].founding fathers also recognized that not everyone prayed to the same God (if any god at all). In spite of Texas trying so hard to remove Thomas Jefferson's opinion on this issue, the truth is still out there in articles like the U.S. Constitution On-Line which printed a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. I'll let you read the letter yourself, but I find that I have to include this segment leading up to the letter itself, showing how much time Thomas Jefferson spent on composing the letter in order to ensure that he didn't insult the Association:

"The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."

The key words are "...the establishment of religion." In other words, he understood, as did the majority of our founding fathers, that to impose one established religion would result in the same constrictive lives of their own ancestors; those first brave men and women who sailed for the New World and established a pluralistic [2] society; one that became a siren call for those who were, as Lady Liberty so eloquently states via the words of Emma Lazarus, "...yearning to breathe free."

But today, our political 'leaders' (a term I use very loosely) have forgotten the wonder and brilliance of a pluralistic society and the true freedom it provides and encourages. They've forgotten what the Statue of Liberty has come to mean to the world - as so eloquently stated in "Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus":

"...the statue [of Liberty] emitted a new ideal for the United States. Liberty did not only mean freedom from the aristocracy of Britain that led the American colonists to the Revolutionary War. Liberty also meant freedom to come to the United States and create a new life without religious and ethnic persecution. Through Larazus' poem, the Statue of Liberty gained a new name: She would now become the "Mother of Exiles," torch in hand to lead her new children to American success and happiness."

The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Moderate Republicans who are afraid for their jobs, is that they don't understand that separation of Church and State doesn't mean religion can't exist. It doesn't mean those who believe in it are Godless people - just the opposite, in fact. What it does mean is that when the 'church' becomes the State - it must be, obviously, one church. And that's when we have problems.

Stay tuned for part 2 on this subject tomorrow and in the meanwhile, ask yourself a few questions:

• Why would privatizing (meaning allowing a private *business* to take over) Social Security be a bad idea and who would benefit by private business taking over? (this is on the Tea Party agenda)
• Why is something we PAY into - considered an entitlement? Is a paycheck earned for a hard day's work also an entitlement?
• Why does being forced to use your Social Security benefits or Social Security Disability benefits (the ones you've paid into for years) - make you lazy?
• Why are the hard-won rights of the Disabled a bad thing - and who would benefit by the loss of those rights?

This about these questions and we'll compare answers tomorrow....


Footnotes:

[1]: If you want to find the truth about how our forefathers felt on this subject, you'd better start researching fast and keeping copies - the ultra-religious right, via the Tea Party, are quickly revising history or removing parts of it altogether from the education of our children.

[2]: From Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess: "Pluralism refers to a society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious or cultural groups coexist within one nation, each contributing to the society as a whole."