What the **** Tennessee???

It's been a while since I was thoroughly annoyed by one of our idiotic states, but Tennessee is seriously working overtime to get into the mix. (If you missed the other states that annoy me, they are: Illinois, South Carolina, and South Dakota.)

So what is Tennessee doing that it has now won my Stupid State Award? Really, what hasn't it done? Let's take a look, shall we?

First off, I'm sure most of you have heard by now that the Tennessee senate passed SB 49 on Friday, nicknamed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, that would prevent science teachers from discussing homosexuality with their elementary and middle school students. They can't talk about it! Can't acknowledge it's existence. Gay kid in the classroom? Sorry. Kid with gay parents in the classroom? Nope, still no. How about kids in the classroom with eyes and legs who are sure to walk around in the world and see gay people, even if they are not gay themselves? No, no, and no. Children in Tennessee classrooms cannot be exposed to the idea of homosexuality. Now I don't think anyone thinks that grade school children should be taught about the details of sexuality, but that's not what we're talking about. What the bill states is that teachers cannot discuss homosexuality. At. All. Really? As if gay teenagers need something else to make their lives harder. Hello, Tennessee! Have you not heard of the It Gets Better Project? Do you not recall that this was a response to a gay COLLEGE student killing himself because of the unbearable stress of being ridiculed by his peers??? Apparently, promoting "family values" is more important to Stacey Campfield (the bill's sponsor) than protecting the emotional well-being of the children of Tennessee.

Oh, but don't worry. The gays aren't the only group that the Tennessee legislature hates. Oh no. They hate the Muslims, too! SB 1028 aims to save Tennessee from the threat of terrorism by regulating any organization that "adheres to sharia". Now I'm not a Muslim. I've never been a Muslim. But I've read some of this bill, and it is asinine. Here's an example. The beginning of the bill sets out to define what sharia is, and therein explaining why it is a huge threat to the people of Tennessee. Here's one of the things it says:

Sharia requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic, including the representative government of this state with a political system based upon sharia; 

Got that? So if you are an adherent of Sharia law, you, by definition, want it to replace the US Constitution and the US government as a whole with Sharia. Which sounds pretty terrifying, were it not completely inaccurate. I'm not sure what kind of religious scholars they consulted while writing this bill, but here's what a quick check of Wikipedia says:

Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting

Really, all you need to know is this: "Muslims... differ as to what exactly it entails." But they all agree that it's a code of conduct for moral behavior. Sharia is what tells Muslims to pray five times a day or to abstain from drinking alcohol. By banning adherence to Sharia, they are basically stating that Muslim-Americans are banned from practicing their faith. (Yeah, this sounds completely Constitutional.) The Sharia defined in Tennessee's SB 1028 is as ridiculous as stating that:

Evangelical Christians believe that every word of the Bible is the literal Word of God and that God's Laws supercede the laws of man. God's laws are enumerated in the Bible and include supporting the ownership of slaves, polygamy, and the stoning of adulterers.

You know. That really isn't that crazy. I think we should keep a closer eye on those Evangelical Christian types. You know how they are always getting into trouble for all the adulterers they're stoning.

Dammit, Tennessee, don't go hiding behind your fake pretenses of "protecting children" and "protecting family values" and "protecting our citizens from terrorism." That's a bunch of crap and we ALL know it. You don't like gays and you don't like Muslims. And now EVERYONE knows it. Can you please go back to hating in the privacy of your own homes instead of insisting that your hate becomes legislation? Because it just makes you look like a bunch of asses.

Home F***ed-Up Home

So my last two posts have been about states passing dumb or infuriating laws that irked me. Continuing with that theme, I look to Sweet Home, Illinois.

Looking at the big picture, it's really hard to know where to start. There is so much craziness here lately. Like many states, our fiscal situation is well beyond "not good." The state is months behind on paying its bills, including money it owes to schools, service organizations, and private businesses, all of whom are having to lay people off because they can't afford to pay them if the state doesn't pay up for services already rendered. So we are adding to the unemployment numbers by making companies cut employees they wouldn't otherwise have had to cut. Some businesses have even gone out of business while waiting for the state to pay up. I guess that's one way for the state to reduce what it owes, just don't pay your debtors until they're forced to go out if business.

What has gotten us here is politics, plain and simple. Our politicians want to get re-elected, so they promise us better government services and lower taxes. A few years ago we started offering free public transportation to seniors. Why? Because Blago wanted to get re-elected and seniors are a HUGE voting block. If we are offering free public transportation to those who really need it, you know who could use free public transpiration more than seniors: poor people. It would make it easier for them to get jobs and become more productive members of society. You know who doesn't need free transportation? Middle class and wealthy seniors. You know who isn't a reliable group of voters? Poor people. But regardless of who could benefit from free rides the most, Blago didn't pay for it. Free rides for seniors, no plan on where the money that seniors used to pay and now wouldn't pay would come from. Details.

Full disclosure, I voted for Blago for his first term. But I also pretty distinctly remember the moment when he fully lost me. In 2003, Blago signed into law some pretty steep tax and fee increases for trucking companies in Illinois. At the time, truckers said that such large increases would drive trucking businesses out of Illinois. Supporters of the law claimed this was a group who was unhappy about a tax increase and were just trying to make the situation seem worse than it was.

To my untrained mind, this seemed, well, retarded. Government is offering a bajillion services and politicians don't want to upset the voters by raising their taxes, so they pick an industry and raise taxes on them. Well what do we think is going to happen? How hard is it to relocate your business on the other side of a state line. Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket science. If it's more expensive to operate your business in Illinois than it is in Missouri or Iowa or Indiana, why would you stay in Illinois?

A year later, the verdict was pretty much in. Thousands of trucking companies had already left the state, taking jobs and money with them. Again, DUH!

So that was back during the Blago era. Let's see how far we've come. A few days ago there was a big hullabaloo about Caterpillar leaving Illinois. CAT is huge in Illinois. They employ 23,000 people. Later, CAT CEO announced that CAT has no plans to leave Illinois, but that “policymakers in Springfield” are making it “harder by the day.” So a momentary respite; we have not yet driven away one of the biggest employers in the state. Good for us. Can we keep it that way?

Listen up Illinois: the party is over. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. The state can't pay its bills on time. This problem is not going to be easy to fix. It is going to mean fewer services. It is going to mean tax increases. It is going to mean that some public sector employees are going to lose their jobs. It is going to suck. But guess what... We, through our electoral choices and lax attention to our legislators, have dug this hole. And it is a deep f***ing hole. So the party is over and the bill has arrived and we are starting to realize that this is gonna' be hard for a while. Yes. Yes it is.

And this pretty much applies to the nation as well. You want the country out of debt, too? Then don't give me any garbage about how you can't have tax increases during a recession. You cannot fill the budget holes we've created through spending cuts or tax increases alone.  You need both. And you're going to need to compromise on some of your other "core principles." I know compromise is a dirty word now, but that's how you make it happen. If you want the state/country to be out of debt and that's your priority, then you have to deal with the hard consequences that go with it.  Sorry.

Legislation for the Grumpy

Oh, it's been one of those days. A new blog post idea every couple hours. People were finding a myriad of ways to irk me today. In no particular order, here are some of the topics that caused generally higher levels of annoyance than usual (which is already pretty high):

• Scott Walker
• Corporate income taxes
• South Carolina
• Miranda rights

I also had a couple questions about prayer that I think the web community could help me answer, but I think my blog is a little too young for such sensitive topics at the moment.

So let's spin the wheel and see where we land tonight...............

South Carolina it is!  (Ooh.  It's a theme.  Last week it was South Dakota that was on my list.)

Ok, South Carolina, I know you're one of the redder of the red states, and as such, your general "government get out of my business" hackles are going to be raised a little more easily than they might in some other states, but really? With all that's going on in the country and, I'm assuming, in your state right now, this is where you're choosing to spend your energy?

For those of you who don't know, South Carolina lawmakers have proposed a bill which would allow incandescent bulbs to be made in SC and then sold only in SC, thereby allowing them (they hope) to avoid the federal law phasing out incandescent bulbs in favor of CFL's. (Here's the SC light bulb story on AP if you're interested.) The bill is called the "Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act." Seriously, if the name of your bill sounds like it belongs in an SNL sketch, you should just stop right there.

I get it SC. You don't want the federal government telling you what kind of light bulbs to buy. And CFL's don't fully light up right away. And the color is different. And they're more expensive. And they have mercury. And they're not as pretty.  I know.  And you're right.

Except that there's this: when you use that incandescent light bulb, we have to burn more coal to light your house than we otherwise would. And that pollutes my air. And it uses up what I think we can all agree is a precious and finite resource: fossil fuel. We may not love coal, but it's pretty much what we've got right now, so can't we all agree that we should try to use less of it?

And (IMHO) this is really government at its best. It's making people do things that, if only one person did it, wouldn't amount to very much, but if we all do it, actually has a huge impact. And it's not just "isn't this nice" sort of impact. It's preserving our national wealth and decreasing air pollution, which is something that helps us all, i.e. just what the government is supposed to do for us.  

It reminds me of that kick-ass video where the 1959 Chevy and the 2009 Chevy are used in a crash test. (If you haven't seen it, you totally need to watch it: Crash Test Video. I'm not kidding. It's kick-ass.) The 1959 Chevy is this huge hunk of steel compared to the little plastic 2009 Chevy, but the '59 is completely destroyed.  No crumple zones. No seat belts. No air bags.Windshield goes flying off the car. The entire dashboard moves into the passenger cabin and crushes the driver / impales him with the steering column. In the '09, the passenger area remains almost completely intact. My point? None of that happens without government intervention. Without government safety standards, sure, there would be some cars that hold themselves up as the leaders in safety. But your baseline automobiles wouldn't be the amazingly safe vehicles we all benefit from having today.

So South Carolina, really? Incandescent light bulbs? I know it's a sad day, but it's time to let it go. Their time has come, just like it came for the horse-drawn carriages and Atari video game systems. If you really want to protect people's right to play Pong, fine; have at it. Just realize, it's only a matter of time. And there's probably a few more pressing issues that the people of South Carolina need you to start tending to. So get to it.

Meanwhile, I need to figure out which of those other topics I'm going to bitch about tomorrow.

Gun Rights Parable

So I have a little story to tell.  It's a fictional story, but well, you never know how fictional.

A woman, let's call her Suzy, just bought her first home. Suzy's a single mom and the house she and her daughter will now call home is farm house just outside the city limits of your typical American small town. Suzy's excited about having a home and a yard where her daughter can play, but she's concerned about the safety of her family. She knows that living in rural America, if she calls 911, it'll be 10-15 minutes before anyone would actually arrive at her house. Suzy doesn't own a gun, but has been around them all her life and knows well how to be a responsible gun owner.  Suzy decides to buy a gun.

But wait... in the town where Suzy lives, there are no gun shops. Due to laws recently passed, the nearest gun shop is a two hour drive from her home. So Suzy waits for her next day off from her job as a waitress in the town's diner, arranges to have a neighbor watch her daughter, and drives the two hours to the nearest gun shop to buy a gun.

When Suzy gets to the gun shop, she has already done her research and generally knows which gun she wants to buy.  She talks to the owner and gets some additional information about her potential purchase. She picks out a gun and prepares to make her purchase.

Wait again...

"There's a three day waiting period to buy a gun, ma'am.  Need to do a background check. So you need to fill out this form and come back in three days," the shop owner informs her.

"Couldn't I have filled this out at home," Suzy asks?

"Nope," responds the gun shop owner. "Needs to be filled out in person so I can check your ID."

"But I had to drive two hours to get here. I'll have to take another day off of work to come back."

"Sorry ma'am.  There's nothing I can do about it. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but you have to attend a gun safety class, too."

"What?"

"Yes, ma'am. After you fill out this form, you also need to attend a gun safety class before I can sell you a gun."

"But I've been handling guns my whole life."  Suzy is getting frustrated. "Who offers the classes? And how long are they?"

"There's a place just down the street that offers the classes. Class is only a few hours long."

"Down the street? But I told you I live two hours away. I have to come back and take the class and then come back again to buy the gun? This is ridiculous."

"I know ma'am. We're not a fan of the law either."

"Well, ok. I'll fill out the form, but it might be a couple months before I can get back twice for both the class and again to buy the gun."

"Um, I'm afraid that won't do. After you fill out the form, you need to buy the gun within 10 weeks or the process expires and you have to start all over again."

"What! That's crazy! I work two jobs, I had to find someone to watch my daughter, and I had to drive two hours to get here. Now you're telling me I need to do that two more times in the next 10 weeks as well as attend a class that will tell me a bunch of information I already know just to buy a gun! This is ridiculous! It's like they're trying to make it impossible to buy a gun legally."

"Yes, ma'am. I agree. It really is ridiculous."

Suzy filled out the form, left the store, and began her two hour drive back home.

Now I don't know how you feel about gun rights in America, but regardless of your position on the subject, owning a gun is legal in this country. So any laws we enact should be aimed at making it safer for gun owners and non-gun owners, should help us ensure that criminals don't buy guns, and should prevent people from becoming victims of gun violence. Laws should not be put into place where the sole intention is to make it harder for people to do what is 100% legal in this country: buy or own a gun.

But wait, there's more...

100% of what I just said absolutely, positively applies to the rights of women in this country to get an abortion. No matter your personal opinion about the morality of a woman's choice to have an abortion, it is 100% legal in this country. So no woman should have to drive two hours to see a doctor, only to be told that they have to come back three days later. No woman should be told that in those three days, they have to go see another group who will council them against the decision that they are making. No woman should have to jump through hoops designed, not to provide them with more information or better healthcare, but only designed to make it harder for them to choose to have a medical procedure that is 100% legal in this country.

So South Dakota, let me suggest that you put into place the same laws for your gun owners as you do for women in your state. My guess is that voters in South Dakota would never stand for such blatant disregard for their rights as Americans.