Happy Draw Mohammed Day!

Today I'm drawing two pictures of Mohammad, the legendary prophet who gave rise to Islam (just to make sure we have the right guy).

One of him just standing, the other he's on a bike. He's so happy he's getting drawn!

In the Face of the Mormon Church Silence Brigade

First, read the story about this woman whom the Mormon church threatened into silence.

When I was a teenager, growing up as a Mormon, I remember a story being told of a group of women who met with the leadership of the Mormon church. At the time, the Mormon church was against the Equal Rights Amendment (and still is), and these women were in favor.

Both sides laid out their arguments, and the Mormon church leaders put out the "Well, this is the position of the church, and we expect you to follow the direction of the prophet."

As the ladies left, one stayed and said "But - my conscience completely goes against what you've just said."

This leader then called back in the group, and gave them these instructions: "Above all else, we expect you to vote and act via your conscience above what anyone, even the Mormon church leaders say."

I realize this story is apocryphal, but it's a story as a young Mormon I grew up with, and it measured what I felt made "my faith" true compared to the others: the ability to let people vote their conscience.

Even when I admitted to myself that I was an atheist, that I did not believe in anything supernatural, I stayed within the church because it seemed benign. It wasn't forcing people to do what they said.

And then came along the gay marriage issue, the DNA for native Americans issue (long story there I won't relate right here), and I left the church. The faith that used to be about "everyone worship how where and what they may" and "we encourage members to seek the truth and do what they think is right above all else" is now like nearly every other religious group:

Do what we say, don't ever question.

I spit on their memory. They had the chance to just stand up, speak their minds, and leave it at that. Now they're spending money to oppose groups because it doesn't fit with their view of the world, and using strong arm tactics to threaten their own members to silence.

From the teenage boy inside my mind that used to look upon my faith with such admiration and faith, and sees what the Mormon church does for the sake of power:

Fuck you.

Real Conversations: Moral Cheerleaders

Me: What are you watching?

Holli: These cheerleaders dancing. They're the most dressed up and covered cheerleaders I've ever seen. Long pants, no belly showing -

Me: Well, I guess they're very moral cheerleaders then.

Her: Oh, no way.

Me: What makes you say that?

Her: Are you kidding? They're from Kansas. Almost none of them are!

Me: That's kind of harsh.

Her: It's true! The entire state's that way! I should know - I'm from there.

Me: Kansas? I'd never thought it.

Her: Well, just the way it is.

Me: How does that work? You always think of Kansas as being the center of the American heartland, full of goodness.

Her: But not Mormons.

Me: Wait - I said those are *moral* cheerleaders, not *Mormon* cheerleaders.

Her: Oooooohhhhhh. I don't know - I just know they're probably not Mormon.

Me: ....

I think I'm a little jaded

The assignment: Introduce yourself, what you plan on getting out of your degree program, and this class in particular.

What I turned in:

Name: His Royal Imperial Highness of Space and Time, but you may call me John Hummel

Current goals: Honestly just getting through my master's degree. I decided it's a lofty goal and why not.

How will it help my current profession: Honestly, it won't. Let's face it: your current job doesn't reward you for getting a degree because they'd prefer to hire outside the company. What it will do is make it that much easier when applying for another job, or threatening to leave my current employer unless they pay me more.

What do I want out of the course: The ability to dominate databases! To drive them into submission so they obey my every whim! To crush their electronic dreams BWAHAHAHAHA. Or, just make it easier to create efficient resources of information in a database system.

Screwing with Advertisers

From: Bryce Newfound
To: Dpaladin
Subject: Website Analysis

Your web site is really good but you could be missing out on a lot of online
business because of where your site shows up on the major search directories. A few
simple changes could greatly increase your web traffic and your bottom line. Reply
to us and we will give you a free analysis of your site and show you what will make
the difference for your business. Include the best way to reach you with the
results.
Sincerely,

Bryce Newfound

From: John Hummel
To: Bryce Newfound
Subject: Re: Website Analysis

Dear Mr. Newfound,
Thank you very much for your offer, but I'm not sure you're aware of the nature of my web site.

My web site is geared towards people addicted to gambling porn. Gambling porn is much like regular porn, only it involves only dice, cards and pool sticks. As a personal victim, I can tell you that few things are as arousing as the feeling of rolling dice in my hands. The way the cue stick slides through your fingers. Or the silky feel of the cards moving. Slipping through my palm. Back and forth. Until you slam it on the table. Hard. Show it! Show your cards! Yes! Flush me, baby!

I'm sorry. I got all worked up again.

It is wonderful that you're interested in assisting our support group with more notice on the Internet. Perhaps it will be possible for more people to understand this terrible affliction. Those who can't go past Vegas without needing to feel the chips rubbing against their fingers. The people who's eyes move away from the showgirls because they're mesmerized by the spinning roulette balls. So hard and bouncy.

But - odds are your service isn't what we need. But hopefully, if you suffer the same way I do, you're ready to find a cute.

There is hope, Mr. Newfound. Someday, you will look at a deck of cards without sporting a major erection. Until that day occurs, always know there is a time to hold 'em, and a time to walk away.

Sincerely,
John Hummel

I say Happy Holidays. Deal with it.

It's that time of year again, for frenzied shopping and finding that perfect gift. Tinsel and trees, lights and colors declaring that this is the time of the holiday season.

And, sure enough, people are already getting offended if you happen to say the word "holiday" instead of "Christmas." Once again you have groups like the AFA saying that they're going to boycott Dick's sporting good store because they dared to say Holiday instead of Christmas. "Jesus is the reason for the season!" people declare.

It seems that every time this year, I wish Happy Holidays to someone, and I get a very angry "It's Merry Christmas!" back. And no, I'm not kidding. I've had people tell me very angrily that "Well, I say Merry Christmas, and if they don't like it, then they can just deal with it!"

You know - nobody really minds if you want to say Merry Christmas. Really. I don't give a shit.

I'm still saying Happy Holidays.

I say it because sorry, Christians, you don't have a monopoly on the month of December. Jesus was *not* the reason for the season (considering he was more likely born in the spring than the winter). Christmas itself is an older pagan holiday called Saturnalia that Christians took over from the Romans. That's right - the reason for the season is Zeus's daddy.

I say "happy holidays" because I don't know if the person I'm talking to is Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist or otherwise. I don't care - I want whatever holiday they celebrate to be a good one, and if they (like the Puritans - you know, those Christians who fled Europe to help found the United States) decide not to celebrate any holidays, then I still wish them well.

I say "Happy Holidays", and anyone who takes offense to that is a selfish dick. Because for them, it's not about wishing "Peace on earth, good will to men", or heeding the words of the man they claim to follow when he said "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." For them, it's about dominance. It's about "I'm better than you, my god is better than yours and you'd better acknowledge that." The people who protest a company for wishing "Happy Holidays" upon its customers don't care about "Happiness" - they care to remind people that in this season of togetherness, that they don't *want* to be together with *you*.

So Happy Holidays, everyone. And for those who want to take offense because I'm not specifying your particular holiday - you can just suck my yule log.

I am a horrible, horrible person

Telephone: Hi, this is SomeDude from American Express.

Me: Um - ok, sure.

SomeDude: Well, we're calling because you qualify for our accidental insurance program - should something happen to you, get laid off, get into an accident, your bills will be covered.

Me: Is this a joke?

SomeDude: No, sir.

Me: Look, I don't know how you got into my medical records. But it's bad enough the doctor tells me that I've only got 30 days to live. I'm trying to get my affairs in order, and *now* you guys call up because you're worried I won't be able to make my credit card payment before - before I - go?

SomeDude: No, sir! That's not -

Me: I had to tell my wife earlier today that I'm not going to make it to Thanksgiving, and now you guys are already up about making sure you get yours. Well, you can just take me off of the call list. Let me have some peace, all right? I - I just want to have some peace.

*click*

My Lovely Wife (MLW): You're evil.

ABC: You're Demonstrating how the media is failing us

Breitbart. If the name sounds familiar to you, you might first need to put the words "liar" and "complete and utter asshole" around the word. Andrew Breitbart is probably most famous for giving the world James O'Keefe's selectively edited videos that made ACORN look like an organization that supported prostitution and drug trafficking . As the world has since found out, it turns out O'Keefe's "pimp" outfits were staged, and the ACORN employees "interviewed" were trying to stop what they thought were crimes about to be perpetrated by O'Keefe.

Of course, Breitbart said it wasn't his fault, it was all the fault of the media for not checking the facts. Which leads us right to the Shirley Sherrod scandal, where Breitbart released a video acquired through "anonymous" sources that painted Dept of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod as a racist black woman who hated white people.

You might be shocked to hear this, but it turns out that the video of Ms. Sherrod speaking was edited to make the exact opposite point that she was originally trying to make, that it's wrong to discriminate against people.

So we have an established pattern from Breitbart, to have people shoot videos, then edit them to make them look bad. He promotes liars. He targets minorities or organizations that help minorities and works to discredit them through lies.

And now ABC has hired Breitbart to be part of their election coverage on Tuesday.

I'm not going into the problems ABC is having with their new coworker. What I am going to say is that this is the problem with the modern news media. They're not interested in the truth - we know this because they hired Breitbart in the first place. They're interested in controversy, in having monkeys screeching at each other and people watching the poo flinging competitions.

There's any number of people they could have asked to participate. Experts in political opinion. Statisticians who can compare polling results against incoming information. Former politicians discussing their views on what went right or wrong.

But - no. They hired for "controversy", for entertainment of having people on opposing sides of the political spectrum "fighting it out." They could have brought us useful information, an interesting debate between conservative and progressive ideas.

Instead, they opted to serve up a bullshit sandwich slathered with douche drippings and call it a meal. So I'm just letting ABC know:

You're cut off. I'm not watching you in any way, shape or form. No web site, no TV shows. Nothing. Because you're not worth it.

Call me when you're interested in delivering actual worthwhile information that will help people make intelligent decisions, instead of sitting back with the popcorn watching the equivalent of professional wrestling disguised as political discourse.

Dear Tea Party, Stop Supporting Racists

One thing I keep hearing from people in the Tea Party is "The liberals and the media are trying to paint us as a bunch of ignorant racists to discredit our cause!"

I can understand the complaint. If I was accused of being a racist without cause, or being ignorant without cause, I'd be pretty pissed off as well.

But the problem is, the Tea Party isn't getting these accusations without cause. Now, I know, "Oh, well, that's just isolated pockets", or "The Tea Party has such a diverse membership you're sure to find some areas with problems."

Here's my problem: it's one thing if you have some lone wolf in the crowd being an asshole. That happens within every group. But when it's the candidates you support, when the crowd sits back and cheers it on or refuses to act against the racist violent members in their midsts, then you can't claim it's an isolated problem.

When the leader you pick says its easier for minorities to make money selling drugs than getting an education, then yeah - I'm going to say that the people who selected this man to run for office are racists.



Sharon Angle has an ad where Hispanics are patrolling the fence, here to take away jobs and college benefits from an all-white group of college students.


And another Sharon Angle ad that shows Hispanics as scary gang members and arrested while "US citizens" (aka - white people) live in fear of the scary brown people:



Angle, if you may recall, won her Republican primary thanks to Tea Party support. If this is the candidate that Tea Party members pick, then it's perfectly within reach to call the Tea Party movement racist for supporting racists like Angle.

When the NAACP issued a report showing how there were elements in the Tea Party movement that were racist, this was the perfect opportunity for the Tea Party memebers to say "Good! We can now find these members within our midst and evict them from the movement." And while there were some token dismissals, you still have some of the largest groups like Tea Party nation call for a Muslim free congress - and still enjoy the support of Tea Party members rather than moving to expel and reject such notions, you don't hear a peep.

You can't say that racism and bigotry are isolated incidents when the leaders that your group selects and supports are saying and doing the bigoted things. Now, I know, someone will say "But those are just isolated incidents! You're blanketing the whole party based on the views of a few!"

No. I'm basing the whole party based on the leaders that they choose. You may not be judged by the company you keep, but you should be judged based on whom you choose to lead your movement.

The Immorality of Security Agencies

Last weekend I got new service with Verizon, and during the shuffle from one telephone service provider to the next my phone number was changed. They say it's going to take a week or so to get back.

In the meantime, it seems that our new temporary number has been leaked to every energy, lawn service, and home service company for 50 miles, all calling up to offer their assistance.

Most of these I give a "thank you, no, do not call again." A few when they try to push their "Free $50 gift certificate (with a $500 purchase)!", I tell them that it's against my religion to accept gift cards, since it interferes with our ability to worship Miyamoto and his most holy Mario Brothers.

But when ADT called about having a sign on my lawn - even if I didn't have the service, they'd give that to me for free as long as I put the sign on my lawn! I was very blunt that they should not call again, their services were not wanted, and they were to stop calling my house ever again.

"There's no need to be so rude about it," the salesman said. "We're not offering the service. We're working with the local police department in a marketing campaign-"

"You're working for a fucking evil company that wants to put a sign on my lawn to make people think that I support your taxpayer profiting company when I do not. Never darken my door with your shadow, and never take up my time with your phone calls."

And that's when I hung up.

Yes. I'm serious. I think that ADT and the other companies of their ilk are evil. They're as evil as health insurance companies, who stand to profit by finding ways to deny people's health care and pay CEO's multiple millions of dollars.

Think about what ADT does: they provide a service where you pay them every month, and when a smoke alarm goes off - they call the fire department. If a door opens when the alarm is set or a sensor detects a window is broken - they call the cops.

And I sit here asking - why am I paying you - to call the cops?

They show commercial after commercial of attractive white women terrified in their homes as a burglar kicks in the door the second their husbands leave. They cower while the alarm goes off, clutching children while ADT calls the cops.

And again, I wonder - why am I paying them to call the cops?

Why isn't this a basic service, where communities say "If you have the hardware installed, if the fire or break-in alarm goes off, the system auto-dials 911 and puts in a code that either says 'fire' or 'suspected robbery in progress'?

ADT is basically making money sitting between your home, and the services that your tax dollars pay for. They take in the profit when they're paid every month. According to David Cay Johnson, author of the book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill), 99% of alarms generated by these security systems are false alarms, furthering costing the taxpayers even more money.

And there's no incentive to fix it.

So no, ADT, Brinks and the rest. I don't live my life cowering in fear. And I think your service should just be a part of a communities fire and police and other emergency systems. You can make money installing or selling the equipment, but after that, be gone.

Crazy Comes Full Circle

Several years ago I listened to a book on tape The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. I hope any readers of this blog and the author will forgive me for any mistakes I make in referencing that book.

That said, there was a fascinating part discussing how the ideas of Millennial Rule propogated from one group to the next. The idea isn't new, but the most common thread starts with the Book of Revelations in the Bible. It goes something like this:

• There's going to be a time of great trouble.
  
• The world is divided into The Good and The Evil.
  
• Eventually, the Evil will be destroyed.
  
• Once all evil has been eradicated, there will follow 1,000 years of happiness and joy for the Good people left over.
  

In the case of the original story in Revelations, this was tied into the early Christian church and Yahweh worship. Eventually, everybody would believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of Yahweh and the Redeemer of the World, all the bad people would be cleansed off the earth, and everything would be awesome.

Ever since then, various groups tried to use this idea, only with changes, and with each adaptation the concept, the Good and the Evil was changed. You start off with Christians being The Good and everybody else being The Bad.

Then came along people like Lenin and Stalin. But in their view, it was the bourgeois (aka the rich and powerful) versus the proletariat (aka the regular/poor people). Once you got rid of all of the rich people and destroyed their power, then you'd have a utopia that would last for at least a thousand years.

Then the Nazi's came along, and they said "Oh, no no no. You guys have this all wrong. See, it's the Aryans who are the Good and the pure ones, and the Jews/gypsies/homosexuals/anybody but Aryans who are the Evil - especially the Jews. So if we just kill off all of the Jews, then anyone else non-Aryan, then we'll have a 1,000 year Reich where everyone will be happy."

Then, if my recollection of The Crisis of Islam is correct, this idea was then picked up by the Baathists. Certain scholars were in Germany as World War II was starting up,and when they returned to the Middle East they said "You know, these Germans have a great idea - only they got it all wrong. Clearly, the Arabians (or the Persians if you were in Iran) are The Good, and everyone else (especially the Jews!) are The Evil. So if we just get rid of all of the Jews and then the non-Arabians, only Good people will be left and we'll have a thousand years of peace."

Guess what happened when Al-Qaida popped up? In their case, The Good were Muslims (at least, their brand of Islam which was much more strict and something like you see the Taliban go by), and the Evil was everybody who wasn't Muslim - or their brand of Islam. Originally, they were attacking other Muslims in the Middle East, since if they could get rid of the "not strict enough Muslims" then they'd have peace. But then they decided that they had to get rid of the non-Muslims first, then go after the not-strict-enough Muslims - so Al-Qaida shifted its attention to the United States.

So where am I going with this? Well, it turns out that this crazy, stupid notion that if only you could get rid of (really, kill off) The Evil and then everything will be wonderful has once again returned to Christianity.

OK, it never really left it - there have been groups that have been looking forward to The End Of The World and the Destruction of the Non-Believers since at least 50 CE. This has been true in the United States, between the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and so on.

That said, those groups have been fairly benign compared to the other groups I mentioned. However, the US is now facing a new round of crazy. Take Hawaii, where a candidate for governor who's a member of a church that is campaigning against witches.

Witches. In the year 2010. And not just witches, but they want to go about and "If you have any idols in your home, we're gonna burn 'em! If you have any witchcraft items in your home, we're gonna burn 'em!" It's what you see in the Tea Party/David Barton/Glenn Beck historical revisionism that tries to convince people that the United States was always meant to be Christian, that the Founders didn't want any other religion than Christianity - and if you're of any other religion, or believe set, or even don't have a religion other than Christianity: then you must be evil.

It's a notion that seeks to replace all knowledge such as in the Texas schoolboard system to get rid of the ideas of The Evil (aka - non-Christian), because if we could just get rid of those, then we'd have a perfect country and have 1,000 years of peace and happiness. It's the same thinking that produces people like Christine O'Donnell, a Senate candidate who doesn't believe that the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits government from establishing religion. It's what leads people to make stupid comments like "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.".

The stupidity, the rank fearmongering isn't astounding. What's astounding is how many people are falling for it, and willingly embracing it.

It's the same old tribalism that "if only The Other" would

Who's Holding the Foreclosure Bag?

Another day, another revelation regarding the utter clusterfuck that is the foreclosure crisis. Now we're learning that the original reason why the major banks were halting foreclosures was because they were using notaries to sign foreclosure documents without reading them or verifying that the documentation was complete.

One of the biggest issues with this is the entire idea of who actually has ownership of the title to a home. Usually, you go to the bank to buy a house. They give you a loan, and in return, they hold onto the documents that give them ownership of the home as verified by the local and state governments where the house resides. Once you pay off the mortgage, they transfer that paperwork over to you. If you sell the house, you transfer ownership of those papers to the new owner - or the new bank holding the mortgage.

Only the last decade saw mortgages traded between banks like they were Pokemon cards. They were sold off to major investment firms, slices up and sold into CDOs and other complex financial "instruments" - and it turns out that the important paperwork that actually defines who owns the home may have been lost in that process. And tracking it down can cost hundreds of man hours *per house* - if not thousands depending on the number of times it was traded about.

So when the banks went to foreclose on people, they submit paperwork to the courts saying "We own the house. This person has a mortgage with us, and they haven't been paying. So they must leave the house so we can take ownership of it and sell it to someone else instead. And here's the signature of the foreclosure agent in the bank who has reviewed this paperwork to verify it's all correct."

Two problems:

1. It turns out the foreclosure agents in the bank weren't reading the documents, because with 800 foreclosures to review a week, there was simply no time.

2. The banks in a growing number of instances are finding that they don't exactly know where the title of the house wound up, or if they were properly transferred ownership of the house. And in a time when so many companies have been going out of business - even financial ones - it may be impossible to find out who actually owns the house.

Whoops.

Now, here's where things get worse - turns out the banks have been drafting Wal-mart floor employees, line workers - anyone with a pulse who "review and sign foreclosure documents" without knowing what any of it means.

I get why they did it. The banks need an army of people who can just crank through documents, sign them, and then have them forwarded back to legal so they can kick people out of their houses as fast as they can.

Here's my question, though:

Who's legally obligated to pay the price for submitting fraudulent documents?

The second those documents hit the courts with the signature of "This has been properly reviewed and we own the house" and it's *not true*, that's fraud. So whom will the courts go after? The banks who hired people and submitted the documents?

My money is the banks are going to scapegoat the people they hired with the attitude of "Well, if you didn't understand it, you shouldn't have signed it. So now the judge is going to fine you for having submitted bad documents.

"Oh, and you're fired because you submitted fraudulent documents when we told you to."

I'm afraid we're going to see the latter more than the former. And I'd love to see our government prevent that from happening. It's amazing how when there's a financial collapse or toxic spill the CEO's and executives aren't under any criminal or financial blame - but I won't be surprised to see the grunt workers in this case get caught holding the bag for all the court fees when they come due.

Justice for Those Who Can Afford It

You know the idea that if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you? The part in the Miranda warning:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Now it turns out - who cares about getting an attorney if you can't afford it? Now you have states that are making poor people pay for their public defenders.

Hey - maybe we'll be able to use those modern debtor's prisons that are coming back into vogue.

Arresting CEO's - This Is What "Being on the People's Side" Looks LIke

Recently, there was a huge toxic spill that caused destruction of property. The material was released because of apparent negligence by the company storing the toxic material because they ignored safety regulations.

Now, if this was, say, the BP disaster in America, you know how it goes: there's some payments, massive ads run by the company that's hurting the environment telling people how they're helping, then a cover up.

Turns out - that's not how Hungary responds when companies spill toxic chemicals across their country. When a toxic spill harmed 150 people, the CEO of the industrial plant was arrested.

Boom. You want to screw with the environment? You get thrown in jail. You don't get to go around telling people how awesome you are, or how you're going to fix it while spending millions in TV ads. You are arrested for hurting people.

Symbolic? Maybe. But it tells every other would be polluter: This could be you. You will not get away, you will not go home to sleep in your comfortable bed while people suffer. You will be put into prison and be treated like the criminal you are.

Man. Makes you wonder how things might change in the United States if a few more CEO's of companies involved in criminal wrongdoing did a perp walk of shame.

Foreclosures, Judgments, and Congresses Betrayal

It's hard not to feel a bit irritated right now at the United States political system.

When the healthcare debate raged, Single Payer (where everybody in the United States would be signed up for Medicare) was off the table - couldn't even be brought up for debate. The same thing was true with the Public Option (which would have created a government run not-for-profit company). Or even stronger regulations on Wal-Street, or any number of things that "well, we can't get that past the Republicans or the Blue Dog democrats - bummer!"

Now, let's go into recent events. Those with memories lasting longer than a goldfish may remember there was a near financial meltdown of the financial industries, one caused by banks giving far too many mortgages to people who shouldn't have had them so they could sell the mortgages to investment firms on Wall Street. When this bubble finally popped, these financial institutions - which were also tied into people's retirement and pension funds - basically said "give us money or else the whole United States economy will collapse!"

So the American public did. And in return - well, the economy doesn't fall apart, but when it came time to help small business with loans, the response from the major banks was "Well, we're going to hold onto our money so we can buy out other places when *they* go under."

And then in the process, housing foreclosures started in. Attempts made by the Obama administration to curtail this were admittedly weak - but let's face it: the banks weren't interested in playing ball. Story after story of banks being unwilling to work with homeowners who are underwater or facing changing interest rates from mortgage.

Just when the foreclosures were rising - we find out that the courts have started paying attention and making banks prove that they actually own the homes they're foreclosing on. We're finding banks evicting people from houses they don't own.

In order to foreclose on a home, the bank has to prove:

1. That they actually own the home (remember - the homeowner is paying a loan on the house, and until it's paid off, the bank is supposed to own the home).
2. That the person they have the mortgage with is actually the person who signed the paperwork.

So imagine the shock and horror in the financial system when courts are actually making them prove they own the house in question - this after the years of trading houses back and forth like Monopoly cards. And to make matters worse, it turns out that the people working in the banks to review and sign the paperwork were signing the documents as complete without even looking at them. Literally thousands of foreclosure submissions to the courts were sent without the banks actually making sure they actually had the title to the home let along the proof they owned it.

Banks like Bank of America brought a halt to foreclosures at the realization that they courts could toss out their foreclosures. Attorney generals start launching investigations to see if there was fraud involved in claims to the courts that the paperwork is complete.

And then - along comes Congress to the rescue. Oh, they couldn't do Single Payer. They couldn't get a vote for weeks on giving the 9-11 first responders health care or voting on the budget increasing Bush tax cuts because the Democrats didn't have a spine.

Then along comes a bill that would say that courts have to accept the paperwork from banks as being properly checked as long as it has a signature of a notary. Oh, I know - the literal language just says:

Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if--
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.

Oh - sounds innocent. It just says that if a notary has signed it, then it shall be "recognized". The courts would have to accept it. All of the sudden, all of those problems with foreclosures would just go away - banks could submit their paperwork and the courts would have to accept it - and if there are any problems, well, how were we the banks supposed to know that the notaries didn't do their job?

That's not what bothers me. The major banks are crooked and out to make a buck for themselves and screw anybody else. But Congress passed this law in the Senate by Unanimous Consent - in other words, they didn't debate it. Just as the banks needed some help - along comes the Senate to pass a law that helps them.

No questions. No "hey, what's up with this?" Just "Oh, hey, sure - both Democrats and Republicans can get behind a bill that just happens to save the bacon of the major banks who don't want to hire the manpower to actually review their paperwork or verify they own the homes."

Heaven forbid the major banks that wrecked the economy, then got loans to save themselves, then refused to help out anybody but themselves now that they're faced with spending more money in verifying the paperwork they're submitting is correct, in verifying that the people they're throwing out of houses are actually the right people - instead, they can just get Congress to push through a bill that helps them.

It would be nice if Congress were on our side. It would be nice if I can believe it. But after years of Congress being unable to pass anything because "It's just so hard in the current climate" then turning around and passing something that helps out the richest and most powerful - well, I guess we know who's side Congress is really on.

Political Ad Spending up 5 Times since 2006. Elections Now Suck

I can not convey how bad this year is going to be for politics. Pre-Citizen United, the Supreme Court case that gave corporations unlimited spending powers in election. It might have helped if the Republicans hadn't at least blocked laws that would make corporations to name when they're sponsoring an advertisement.

But no - evidently that was too much to actually provide any kind of accountability. So now it turns out we've got 5 times more spending this year than in 2006. And over 80% of that is going to assist Republicans.

Well. Color me shocked, kids. I'm amazed that when corporations are able to spend as much money as they want, they'll blanket the airwaves to support the Republicans which line up to hand up the cash. Here's the sickest part to me:

One major player this year is the 60 Plus Association, an Alexandria-based group that bills itself as the conservative alternative to the AARP seniors group. In 2008, the group reported less than $2 million in revenue, most of it from direct-mail contributions.

This year the group has spent $7 million on election-related ads, according to its FEC reports. It also funded a $9 million campaign against Obama's health-care overhaul in 2009.

Amazing. They bring in $2 million from donors, yet somehow are able to find the money to pay for $9 million in ads. Gee. I wonder where the money could come from to protest health care reform. I can't think of anyone other than multibillion dollar insurance companies who might -might!- have an interest in fighting a health care bill that makes them pay out 85% of their revenue actually helping their customers.

Brave new world, kids. And it's going to suck.

That's *Doctor* Hummel to you know, kids

My Sons Will Not Join That Which Discriminates Against their Father

The Boy Scouts don't allow Jews to be Scoutmasters.

The Boy Scouts don't allow Catholics to be Scoutmasters.

The Boy Scouts don't allow Muslims to be Scoutmasters.

Each of those statements are false, but I imagine they raise the same level of feelings within you as when I type this true statement:

The Boy Scouts don't allow atheists to be Scoutmasters.

Tonight I attended a local meeting at my sons elementary school regarding their potential participation in the Cub Scouts and ultimately the Boy Scouts program. I participated in Cub and Boy Scouts through my own elementary through high school years. This was back when I was still a member of the LDS (aka Mormon) church.

There, the LDS church was as entwined with the Scouting program like two snakes twisted around a staff. Opening and closing prayers, meetings held in the church house - it was pretty much another church meeting.

Things are different now. I'm an out of the closet atheist, and will not have my sons participate in the Scouting program through the Mormon church through one simple reason: they don't allow either homosexuals nor atheists to be scout leaders. Evidently, they lack "proper values" to be able to lead their own children (let alone others) in Scouting events.

Tonight at my children's elementary school, when the opportunity was raised to asked questions, I asked if that rule is enforced at the local level. Turns out it does. Even a group that is hosted at a local school - local secular government institution - still regards atheists as "not fit" to be fully participating members.

Evidently, the fact that I pay my taxes like a patriot should, that I volunteer in my community, that I care for my family isn't good enough if I don't also share belief in the supernatural.

Then my boys will miss out on Scouting. Because I can not see fit to have them participate in an organization that teaches them to discriminate against their father.

Mr. Vice President - Bush didn't care about the troops

I was watching Colbert with Biden on, when Biden turns to the camera and said "President Bush, I disagreed with you on policy, but you always showed commitment to the troops and for their welfare."

I like Biden. I think he lets his heart and mouth run ahead of his head. But right then, I was ashamed to hear those words come from his lips.

Bush didn't give a shit about the troops. If he had, he'd have never have allowed Cheney and company to manufacture every single lie about "why we have to go into Iraq." "Al queda's there!" "No, they're not." "They have WMDs!" "No, they don't." "Uranium!" "No, they don't!" "There will be mushroom clouds if we don't!"

Liars. Bush didn't care when it was reported that there wasn't enough body armor, that there weren't enough troops. No problem - we'll just call up the national guard. Sure, they'd be more useful at home helping with, I don't know, giant fucking hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Bush didn't give a flying fuck about the troops when they were pulled back into active duty over and over again without rest. When they were being pushed back into active service after their terms should have ended by using legalese.

Bush didn't care about the troops when the VA needed more funding to pay for all of the brain damaged US soldiers who had done their duty and then came home without the help they needed. I'm glad that Obama is spending some more money there and working to streamline the process from active military into VA care - but it's still not enough.

The only thing Bush cared about is that he got to swagger about, pretend he was a big a man as his father. Fuck him. Bush Sr wasn't a saint, but he actually put his balls on the line for the country when he served, while W's contribution to the national guard was figuring out how drunk he could get without anybody caring.

So with all due respect Mr. Vice-President, you're wrong. You're so terribly horribly awfully wrong. Oh, I get the political game, how you and Obama have to show that you're "better" than the former administration that lied, cheated, and spent our national treasure of good men and women in Iraq and spent $3 trillion (and counting!) of taxpayer money to enrich their friends.

But right then, I wanted to tell Mr. Vice-President Biden that he could go fuck himself if he really though Bush cared about anything but himself.

Dr. Laura proves she doesn't get the 1st amendment

You may have heard that radio show host Dr. Laura is leaving radio, this "coincidence" happening right after she went on a "nigger nigger nigger" tirade where she complained about how " I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown, and I don't get it."

Yes. Amazing how people are demonizing whites who hate black people. I guess I don't get it either. Oh, yes, I do, because it's racist.

That said, Dr. Laura is leaving radio, and leaving with this bit of nonsense:

“I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she said. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.”

And all I have to say is: What?

Who's taken away your 1st amendment rights? Did someone in the government arrest you, Dr. Laura? Charge you with a crime? Take you to court over something you said?

Oh, that's right. They didn't. What happened is people said "Damn, Dr. Laura is a racist. She says racist things. When she said 'nigger nigger nigger' I said 'racist racist racist.'"

Dr. Laura is complaining because other people are allowed to have their speech. Their right to free speech lets them say "I think Dr. Laura is kind of a racist bitch." Their free speech allows them, without government interference, to say "If you are a radio station that hosts the Dr. Laura show, I will call up the companies who advertise with you and tell them I will not buy their product as long as they advertise on the Dr. Laura show."

You see, people like Dr. Laura don't really want a world with free speech. They want paid speech. They want to be paid for whatever they say, no matter how hurtful or stupid or outright wrong. They want to force people to keep quiet and buy the products that pay them money. It's what you hear from people like Glenn Beck when he complains that other people using *their* voices to say "I will not buy that or associate with people who watch that racist Glenn Beck character who hates on Muslims and says the president hates 'white culture'" - evidently, they should say what they want, and we should keep quiet and just keep on ensuring they get paid.

Dr. Laura is leaving radio. Good for her. She can go on out and keep saying all the rotten racist things she wants, all the stupid things against gay people she likes.

At least then her speech will truly be "free", since hopefully nobody will want to pay to hear it.