Father and Son Arrested for Harassing Palin Family

This whole situation seems rather odd, and is mostly a he-said, she-said type of deal. The two men at the center, accused of harassing and stalking Sarah Palin and her daughter Willow Palin, are Craig and Shawn Christy, a father and son, who claim to have done nothing wrong and that they are, in fact, the ones who are actually being harassed.

Karen Christy, Craig's wife and Shawn's mother, says that they've done nothing wrong. She says that in 2009, Willow and Sarah Palin began sexting their son Shawn. This seems to be the beginning of everything. Both mother and daughter deny ever having done any such thing, and the Christy's are accusing the Palins of using their political standing and weight to have all manner of law enforcement, including the FBI, harass them over the whole sordid situation.

However, while the family maintains that they are not a threat to the Palins they also do not deny that the phone calls were made.

"...and said Craig and Shawn made the recent phone calls to try to locate an original copy of a letter threatening Willow Palin that was submitted as evidence against Shawn earlier this year."

Shawn Christy denies having any involvement in the letter.

However, the thing is, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Even if the right way doesn't appear to be working, that doesn't mean you get to break the law in order to make things work for you. Craig and Shawn Christy did make the phone calls in question.

There were hundreds of calls, and just the recordings of the ones from Shawn alone include tirades laced with profanity and promises that the phone calls would continue nonstop.

I understand the frustration of the Christy family. They feel that they've been wronged, and perhaps they have, by the Palin family, by the Palins' legal team, and by law enforcement working on behalf of the Palins. It's gotten to the point that they feel this is a conspiracy against them and no one will listen. And that desperate times are starting to call for desperate measures to end the harassment against them.

However, this is not an excuse to begin harassing the Palins. It's not very bright, for one thing. It gives the Palins more ammunition against them and makes them look even more guilty of everything else. Which will make things even worse for them in court.

Being fed-up and at wit's end doesn't give you the right to break the law. I can understand their motivation and their desperation, but it isn't a valid excuse. They did the wrong thing and now they're going to have to pay for that. And, if they were truly innocent of wrong-doings up until this point, that makes their behavior this time even more unfortunate.

If Karen Christy's assertion that they seem obsessed only because they've been harassed by the Palins and law-enforcement and legal teams working on behalf of the Palins, and are trying to get the truth out to the public and to the justice system, they are going about it the wrong way and are instead helping the Palins sink their ship.


CORRECTION: I originally made it seem as if only Willow Palin was accused of the sexting, but both Willow and Sarah Palin have been accused of sexting Shawn Christy.

Breastfeeding Mom Told To Leave Women-Only Gym

A Texas mother was in a gym with her small son who is still breastfeeding. When it was time for him to have a meal, she went to the Kids Club area of Pure Fitness gym in Houston, TX and sat down, making sure it would be impossible for the kids in the room to see her nipples or her breasts, and proceeded to feed her son.

After a few moments, someone approached Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser and, according to her, asked her to stop breastfeeding. When she said she wanted to speak to the manager, the woman who approached her said that she was the owner and then proceeded to ask Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser not only to stop breastfeeding but to leave the gym.

It should be noted that the gym itself denies this happened, and say that they never asked her to completely stop breastfeeding nor to leave the gym. They just asked her to go to a different part of the gym where there were no children and where it would probably be more comfortable to breastfeed. They say that they felt uncomfortable allowing her to breastfeed in front of the children because there was no way to know if all of their parents would have thought it was acceptable. Without a permission slip signed for such a thing, they felt the best thing to do was to ask her to go to another part of the gym.

Personally, I am more apt to believe Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser's version than the gym's. I feel that right now they're trying to cover their asses and since it's just her word against theirs...well it's pretty easy to say she's lying. I've seen enough people in positions of authority act the way that Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser describes to feel it's more authentic. But, I could be wrong, I guess.

Either way, she's fighting back. And so are her supporters. This has not just been taken to the media, there's been an organized nurse-in scheduled for August 26th at the gym by people who support Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser and her right to breastfeed wherever she wants to.

Also, regardless of your views on this, in Texas it really is discrimination for this gym to have done what they did. By Texas law, it is a legal right for a woman to breastfeed anywhere she is authorized to be. This means not just where she's authorized to breastfeed, but anywhere is allowed to go where she is NOT breastfeed she is also allowed to breastfeed in those areas. So, she had every legal right in Texas to breastfeed in the gym and to breastfeed in the room she was at.

So, if you don't agree with Ms. Montgomery-Schlanser...well that's your prerogative, but the law in Texas says her rights were violated, regardless of whether or not you or the gym like it or not.

Anchorage Mom Arrested For Hot-Saucing Son

A mother from Anchorage, Alaska has been arrested and charged with misdemeanor child abuse for forcing her adopted son to keep and hold hot sauce on his tongue for lying until he admitted it. Only when he admitted it, did she allow him to spit it out. But, the punishment didn't stop there. After that, she gave him another punishment, also for lying. She made him get into a freezing cold shower and stand there until she told him he could get out.

There are advocates of these punishments, and some people don't think they cause harm. But, they do and they are child abuse. It is not the same, as someone actually posits in the video, as feeding your child something with hot sauce on it. In that case, the hot sauce is probably minimal and if it's too hot the child probably has the option of not eating it or of finding a way to cool the heat. In the case of this punishment, it is forced. And, what is the point of punishing the boy twice in ways that he obviously finds traumatic for the same wrong action?

The woman blames her actions on being fed-up with her kids, and with him in paricular because conventional methods don't work. This is often something that you hear when parents resort to violence to discipline their kids. And it isn't a good enough reason, sorry. You don't legally get to beat or torture your child until they do what you want them to do. It doesn't even really work. Ruling by fear of the parent really just makes the kid get better at being sneaky and lying, especially if they do something wrong and it's an accident and they don't feel they can trust their parents to understand it was an accident. I'm aware lying is not an accident, but I'm speaking generally here. Also, in a situation where the lie is only strongly suspected but not already confirmed by other sources, such torturous and traumatic behavior could cause the child to admit to something he did not do. Which will further alienate the parent from the child. I know if I were this kid, I'd never want anything to do with either of those creeps again when I was able to get away from their care.

I think that it's outrageous this woman is only up on charges of misdemeanor child abuse. In my opinion, she should be up for a stiffer crime than that. At least take the word "misdemeanor" off of it. This woman needs to do jail time, in my opinion. And that boy, and the rest of her kids, need to be taken out of her custody for good. She can't handle being a parent when her kids misbehave, then she can't handle being a parent period and shouldn't be allowed to keep her kids.

Taking kids out of the custody of the parents is always extreme and isn't to be done lightly, but if it means they don't have to endure trauma and torture, then I think it's the lesser evil. The woman's husband is a police officer and I guess he's apparently fine with what she did. Which is even worse. It teaches the kids they don't get help from police when they're in danger.

The only reason this ever went so far in the legal system is because video footage of the punishment she was giving the boy was aired on the Dr. Phil Show. Afterward, so many of the viewers were heartsick and worried for that boy, and the other kids in the household, that they contacted the Anchorage Police Department, where the father worked of course, and reported the abuse that it just could not be ignored and something finally got done about it.

I just hope that this judge throws the book at this woman. I feel that some responsibility should also be placed on the father, since he obviously knew what was going on and did nothing about it. As far as I'm concerned, you do not ever treat another living creature this way, especially not one as helpless against you as a child. I don't care how fed-up you are.

Bachmann Promises $2 Gas If Elected

I think that Michele Bachmann is confused about what the abilities and responsibilites of the President of the United States are. She seems to be treating this somewhat as a campaign you'd see in a public high school for class president. You know, where they make promises about candy machines they can't keep.

Now, she's promising that if she is elected president she will make sure that the gas prices at the pump are down to $2 again. This hasn't been seen since shortly after Obama was elected president. And there's a reason for that.

For one thing, no one world leader has control over this, and certainly not the President of the United States. It's not something that works that way. You'd have to slash the price of oil per barrel. And the only way to slash it like that would be for a global depression, not just a recession, but a global depression. Global.

So, essentially, Michele Bachmann (R-MN) just promised a bunch of people that if they elected her president, she would cause a global depression and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Well, I guess she could manage that...considering the way the borrowing system is set-up for the world. And, I would not be surprised for a red-hot second if her policies really would cause untold troubles not just for the US but for the global economy itself.

It's nice to see that she's decided to try honesty for a change. You heard her yourselves, folks. She promised a global depression if you put her in the White House.

Pastor of Megachurch Found Dead in Hotel Room

Pastor Zachary Tims Jr. was found dead in his hotel room on Friday by hotel employees. He heads an 8000-member ministry called New Destiny Christian Center near Orlando, Florida. He was 42.

He was visiting New York and was scheduled to go to Texas next. When he was found, the doors were locked from the inside and there was no obvious physical trauma to the body. He had an envelope of a white powdery substance in his pants, presumed to be some sort of drug. The autopsy was inconclusive, but we'll have to wait some weeks before anyone knows the results of toxicology.

Rev. Tims is no stranger to controversy. He has had drug problems in his past, but most notably from before he became a born-again Christian and before he started to minister. The public story as to why he no longer took drugs is, to me, dubious. It seemed it was an instant miracle from God and that he was then immediately called into the ministry and got two college degrees. Those who knew him and attended his services say that his method of ministry is different and appealed to young people.

As we all know, there is no instant cure for drug addiction. So, if it is true that he tried to kick it by himself and never got any help for it from a professional facility or counselor, it's unlikely he ever actually quit drugs, or if he did that it lasted very long. So, the fact that he may have had drugs on him or in his system is not too surprising to me. I do find it a little odd that if he was in that room alone and was already taking drugs while in there...that an envelope of more drugs was found in his pants. Why would he need to continue to hide the envelope if he was alone in the room and didn't expect to be disturbed? After all, the hotel staff had to find him. Not a friend, family member, church member, or colleague.

However, the drug thing wasn't an issue in his pastoral life, as it was something that he claimed was in the past and if it wasn't he seemed to have hidden it well until now. But, a controversy that occurred while he was in the ministry business was one all too common with megachurch pastors. He was married, but had an affair.

His affair was with a stripper and when it became public he and his wife, Riva, whom he had four children with, divorced in 2009. However, despite that he seems to have kept in close contact with his family, as Riva is on the record for saying that shortly before he died in New York he was vacationing with them in Puerto Rico.

This sort of controversy, the drugs and the cheating, is not new at all to the megachurch pastors of the United States. And it will not end with this man. Quite personally, I think that these megachurches are scams and so are most of the personal stories they try to sell people to prove that their god is real. It's so rampant that I'm surprised anyone wants anything to do with a megachurch.

But, that's beside the point. I'm sad for his friends, his family, his colleagues, and all those who knew him personally and who are mourning his loss. Whether he was a scam artist or not, he will be missed by many people and it's always tragic when a person dies so unexpectedly, with suspicious circumstances but no real answers.

I hope that the toxicology report can shed some light on the cause of death, since the autopsy could not. Even if it isn't what they want to hear, at least they'll have an answer.

Search Intensifies for Missing Tourist in Aruba

Apparently, yet another tall blond woman has gone missing in Aruba. This time, however, the suspect is not a native to that area. Instead, the suspect is a man named Gary Giordano, who is also a tourist, and traveled to Aruba with the missing woman, Robyn Gardner.

No physical evidence to tie Mr. Giordano to any crime involving Ms. Gardner has yet come about, but they are now uncovering some interesting circumstantial evidence against him.

Apparently, Mr. Giordano took out a $1.5 million accidental death life insurance policy on Ms. Gardner shortly before they took the trip to Aruba. The insurance policy names him as the sole beneficiary and was only good for the duration of their trip. He tried to begin redeeming the insurance money two days after reporting her missing, saying she had disappeared while they were snorkeling and he has no idea what happened to her.

So far, the search for the woman has turned up nothing.

It might also be interesting to note that this man also had pictures of the woman that were, according to at least one source, pornographic in nature, and in many of them you cannot tell whether Ms. Gardner was awake or not because you cannot see enough of her.

"You only see organs," Julia Renfro, editor-in-chief of Aruba Today, told People. "You don't know if she is awake. There are other pictures where she is posing naked."

I'm not sure if the photographs have anything at all to do with her disappearance. People allow significant others to take pictures of them like that quite often. At the very least, while not everyone does it is still not uncommon. So, the possession of pornographic photos of Ms. Gardner by Mr. Giordano is not in and of itself suspicious or strange.

Ms. Gardner apparently does have a boyfriend back home in Maryland, the state that both she and Mr. Giordano reside, but this also doesn't mean a whole lot. She seems to have willingly gone to Aruba with Giordano. Their actual relationship is not known, nor is their behavior toward one another on the trip, but they did share a room at a Marriott hotel. It's worth mentioning, I suppose, but the existance of a boyfriend back home likely means nothing to the case.

But, if you ask me, that insurance policy needs to send up a gigantic red flag. In fact, it should be neon red with flashing and sparkling lights.

This insurance policy seems to have been tailored from the start with her death in mind as inevitable and not possible. This insurance policy was taken out shortly before they went to Aruba. Did she have a policy on him? Did she even know he had one on her? It was made specifically to last only for the duration of that trip. And it made Gary Giordano the sole beneficiary. It was so new, that he even had to call and ask to make sure that the paperwork had been received by the insurance company. He couldn't stand waiting more than two days after reporting her missing before he had to start trying to collect the insurance on her, which was only apparently good for accidental death. Convenient that it happened mysteriously while snorkeling, with no sign of a body anywhere.

Actually, no. The absence of a body is not convenient for him as far as getting the insurance is concerned. If there's no body, she might just be missing but still alive. At least, as far as the insurance company is concerned. And they will use that as a reason to delay paying the money. But, it is convenient for Mr. Giordano in the sense that at the very least if there is no body there can be no proof that if she is dead it was by murder instead of an accident.

We all know how well the police in Aruba did their jobs when Natalie Holloway went missing. Let's just hope that since Mr. Giordano is not a native of Aruba, and doesn't have any rich relatives who are judges or politicians and upstanding members of Aruban society that they will actually do their jobs this time. That they will eventually find the Ms. Gardner or her remains, that her family will have some form of closure knowing what happened to her if she is dead or will be able to be reunited with her if she is somewhere alive, and that Mr. Giordano will pay for it if he has done anything to harm or kill her.

I really hope that this doesn't end up being another situation like with Ms. Holloway. The families of murder victims don't ever get real closure. Finding the remains isn't enough for real closure, neither is the person who did it getting caught and put behind bars forever or even being executed. Because, none of it brings back their loved one. That person is still dead and gone, unexpectedly and for no real reason. But, at least having the remains of the victim, being able to lay them to rest in whatever way they see fit, maybe even having a place to go to visit with the victim as if they were still there is still a comfort, even if hollow. And, having the knowledge that the person who did it is no longer out there and able to do it again to someone else's family members, that they are being punished for the crime against that person, is also a comfort even if also hollow. It will never be the kind of comfort and closure that they want, but it will be something at least.

A judge has ruled that there is enough evidence to hold Mr. Giordano in Aruban custody for another 16 days. He was first detained, if I am not mistaken, when he tried to leave Aruba.

There is other suspicious circumstantial evidence cropping up against him, as well. Blood was found behind a restaurant they are known to have eaten at, and witnesses have said that Ms. Gardner had appeared "woozy" at that time and that Mr. Giordano had been exhibiting erratic behavior.

Also, when he tried to leave, he did not mention that Ms. Gardner was missing, but rather just told customs officials that she was instead taking another flight. When he was apprehended and taken into custody, he was drenched in sweat.

It does appear that the Aruban police may be taking this case much more seriously than they took the Natalie Holloway case. Which, at least for Gardner's family, is a good thing. Maybe they will actually get some real answers here and actually solve this case.

I don't know how well Ms. Gardner knew Mr. Giordano. So, I can't say that the moral of this story is not to go on a trip, anywhere, with a man you just met. Generally, most crimes like this are perpetrated by people you think you know pretty well and often have actually known for a lengthy period of time.

However, I can say that at least one moral of this story is that if you are too stupid to adequately cover up your crime, and feel the need to leave too many suspicious trails and witnesses behind you, then you probably should not attempt murder, let alone actually carry it out.

Terrorist Sympathizer Website Calls For Letterman's Death

There is an online website that jihadists and al-Qaida supporters use called Shumukh-al-Islam. And, apparently, a supporter and user went onto the website recently in order to call for the murder of David Letterman, host of The Late Show with David Letterman.

The whole thing seems to be due to a joke that Letterman pantomimed. While talking about the death of senior al-Qaida member Ilyas Kashmiri, he drew his finger across his neck. That was it. That was the joke. That was what was so vile and nasty that it warranted someone to go on a website like that and call for the man's death.

"Is there not amongst you a Sayyid Nosair al-Masri (may Allah release him) to cut the tongue of this lowly Jew and shut it forever. Just as Sayyid (may Allah release him) did with the Jew Kahane."

The above is what the user had to say when calling for Letterman's death.

This information comes from a website called SITE Intelligence Group.

It should also be noted that Letterman is apparently not even Jewish. The man that the user speaks of called Sayyid Nosair al-Masri is a terrorist who was tried twice for the murder of Meir Kahane, who was the founder of the Jewish Defense League, in 1991. The second trial resulted in a conviction.

The FBI has stated to the AP that they are looking into the threat against Letterman.

Personally, I think that Letterman should go on doing what he's been doing and if he chooses to issue an apology for upsetting them, that's his business, but I don't think he should make a huge deal out of the apology. It won't be good enough for them, anyway, and besides that every time someone makes the tiniest misstep as far as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer is concerned someone's death is called for. They do this not only because it apparently makes sense to them, but also because they know it gets results. Most of the time, people knuckle under.

In the past when this has happened, newspapers and other print media have refused to show cartoons or articles that have upset the terrorists in some way, afraid that they will be bringing down the wrath of these people onto their country, their city, their state or province or territory, their own media outlet, an employee or group of employee, or themselves specifically.

Even South Park knuckled under when the death of it's creators was called for after they showed the Prophet Muhammed in a cartoon episode, now they use a black box to represent him if they decide to use him.

We cannot allow terrorists to censor our news or our entertainment. It doesn't work to appease them, anyway, and aside from that it just encourages the behavior. I'm all for being sensitive to other people, but this is not the same thing.

If this person had instead sent in letters to demand an apology from Letterman for something he felt was uncalled for and rude, but did not in any way call for Letterman's death or harm, then that would be different. But, this is not what happened. What happened was instead of doing what a reasonable person might do, they immediately went onto a website that supports terrorism and terrorist groups and called for his death.

We have got to stop this knuckling under now. We and other nations have tried it, it just gives the terrorists more power over us and our media, it encourages the heinous behavior, and it doesn't appease them in the slightest.

Mother Gets Probation For Home Circumcision

A woman by the name of Keemonta Peterson (30, Portland, OR) decided to circumcise her son after reading the Old Testament. However, she figured that at three months old he was probably too old to get a doctor to do it for her. So, after watching YouTube videos on the subject and procedure, she decided to do it herself at home. Apparently, she didn't even bother to contact a hospital or a doctor and ask if they would circumicse a three-month-old child. She just assumed they wouldn't and went on her merry way.

Naturally, this woman who has had no medical training in how to do this and whose sole instruction were via YouTube videos she had found, botched the circumcision. The boy started to bleed uncontrollably and was in excruciating pain. At that point, she did the first thing right since deciding to do this idiotic procedure by herself; she called 911.

At the hospital doctors completed the circumcision and her son has since recovered fully.

Ms. Peterson was taken into custody and spent 28 days in jail, before a judge decided to sentence her to five years probation. She can see her children, including the son she tried to circumcise on her own, if supervised. But, eventually she is expected to regain custody of all of her children. Right now, they are in the state's custody. She will also be expected to undergo mental health treatment and report to a mental health probation officer as part of her plea agreement.

When explaining his sentencing to the defendant, her lawyer, and the prosecution, the judge had this to say:

Despite the "sensational-sounding facts," said Bergstrom, "the reality is you love your children and had absolutely no intent to harm your child."

I find this ridiculous and beyond astonishing. She might not have intended to cause real bodily danger to her son's life, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do it. She showed an extraordinary lack of common sense and regard for her infant son when she did not even bother to find out if a doctor would do the procedure on a child his age. She just assumed they would not. And, instead of seeking out the care of a person who might be considered a reliable alternative to a doctor in an office or hospital, she relied on YouTube videos of all things to help her through the procedure.

I'm sure that Kevin and Elizabeth Shatz didn't intend to cause real and dangerous bodily harm to their children, either. They supposedly loved their children and thought what they were doing was the right thing to do for very similar reasons to this woman. But, it was not the right thing to do and as a result one of their children was killed after a beating, and another nearly died.

These two situations are different, but similar. The Shatz family had similar purposes for doing what they did when compared to Ms. Peterson's reasons. Neither party involved was trying to kill or maim their children, nor torture them. The difference is that beating your children is illegal in the US and circumicision of a boy is not, and that Ms. Peterson's child survived.

I believe Ms. Peterson loves her son. I believe she thought she was doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that she should get off with probation. Even if it is five years long. I think she should have gotten a prison sentence, even if it were a short one, to send a message to anyone else who might be thinking of doing a home circumicision on their son.

It should be noted that throughout that little rant at the end there I did not mention anything about girls being circumcised. That's because it is already illegal in the US to circumcise a girl.

Karger To File Complaint Against Fox News

Fred Karger is a Republican from California who has aspirations for the White House and the presidential seat. He is also gay and has a pro-equality platform, which makes him very different from the other GOP hopefuls.

Apparently, Fox News decided that he was not eligible to participate in a Republican presidential debate last week. Their excuse was that the proof he showed that he had at least 1% support was not sufficient because it was too old or the methodology of the poll was not sufficient.

But, this is the second time that Karger has had to file a complaint; the first time was against a group called Iowa Christian Alliance when he was excluded from a candidate's forum based on the fact that ICA didn't feel he was a legitimate candidate.

Considering the anti-gay bias that goes on with Fox News and organizations like Iowa Christian Alliance, it's understandable that Mr. Karger feels that he is getting treated like a second-class citizen, not worthy of recognition -- especially in a political forum as a Republican -- because he is gay and his platform includes pro-equality.

Both Fox News and Iowa Christian Alliance, it should be noted, seem to claim reasons other than his homosexuality and pro-equality platform as reasons for excluding him, but it seems to be nonsense to me. I wouldn't hold my breath that what they're saying is true. I guess we'll find out when Karger files the complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Personally, I hope that the FEC socks it to Fox News and ICA, telling them they aren't allowed to discriminate against people just because they don't think they fit the bill for what these groups and corporations have in mind for the GOP and what they think real Republicans stand for.

To me, that's what this is really about. Fox News and the ICA don't think that a gay man who runs with a pro-equality platform, or just a pro-equality inclusive platform, is a real Republican and therefore are attempting to keep him out of the public eye and keep his message from being heard.

His real stated goal is to at least be able to be heard, to counter the anti-gay bias that permeates the rest of the Republican candidates and the GOP as a whole. And he's being blocked from doing that. That's wrong. He is a legitimate candidate so long as he is serious about running and he seems to be serious about running. But, even he knows that a Republican who runs on a pro-equality inclusive platform is unlikely to be getting the majority vote. Still, why should that deter him and why should that automatically make him an illigitimate candidate? It doesn't and it shouldn't.

Fox News and organizations like the Iowa Christian Alliance do not get to decide that candidates are illigitimate or should not be heard just because they don't like what they have to say.

Fundie Christians Beat Child To Death In Name of God

This is a very disgusting and heartbreaking story that I just learned about. Apparently, this fundamentalist Christian couple adopted several children, nine to be exact. They believed that God wanted them to beat/spank (apparently to them, these words were interchangeable) their children in order to help them become better, well-adjusted Christian adults later in life. So...they admittedly beat their children regularly.

At the heart of this situation are two books. One of them is the Bible, and the other is a book called To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl. This second book was inspired by Biblical teachings according to the authors. The authors also run a ministry program called No Greater Joy Ministries.

This book advocates beating a child with anything from tree switches, to spatulas, to plumbing equipment. Yes, plubming equipment! It even advises on how many times to smack your child with these items, and does not advocate using your hand instead. Your hand, they said, is not painful enough and any effective spanking MUST cause pain.

In the video, the authors of this book were interviewed and Mr. Pearl explained that if your 7-year-old son were to slug his sister, he would get 10 - 15 "licks." These licks would be given to him via use of a belt or a wooden spoon because he's a boy. He even gives advice as to your own demeanor when beating the child.

"You would take him aside, explain to him that what he'd done was violent and not accepted in our house or in society." And...then you beat him for ten to fifteen strokes, because...violence is wrong. Okay, so the quote I gave wasn't word-for-word, but it was close enough that I put it in quotes. You can hear it for yourself in the helpful video provided by CNN.

Another good and interesting quote within this video is the advice that, "if you can train your horse, if you can train your dog, then you can train your child." Because, obviously, your child is nothing more than property and cannot be reasoned with. In fact, dogs and horses can be trained without violence, as well. So, this makes even less sense as an example.

And, of course, inevitably there are a few other quotes more familiar to those who read the Bible about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

That quote isn't so bad, because it's from the NIV version. But, if you go to a different version you find a differently worded quote. Their translation of the KJV version of the quote is, "He who spares the rod hates the child, but he who loves his child chases him timely." Chases him timely! Lovely.

And of course, there's the ever-present, "if it wasn't good for the child, God wouldn't tell us to do it," mentality, as well.

Now, as to the parents and the actual victims of this particular heinous and tragic act.

The parents' names are Kevin and Elizabeth Shatz of Paradise, California. They pleaded guilty to murder and torture, and will be serving serious prison time. Kevin Shatz will be serving 22 years, while his wife Elizabeth will be serving 12 years.

The authorities said that this was basically death by 1000 lashes, more or less. The little girl, 7-year-old Lydia, was so severely beaten that she died of conditions that you usually only see in earthquake and bombing victims. She was beaten for seven hours with short interruptions for prayer breaks.

When the police officers got there, they tried CPR on the little girl, but it didn't work. The other little girl, Zariah, also adopted, was 11 years old and managed to survive. But, she almost died, as well.

The remaining eight children who are still alive, including Zariah, are now in foster care, since their parents are going to be in prison and...well...also because their parents beat them regularly by their own admission.

These people believed that this was the only way to raise good Christian children. This was helped along by a nasty book that reinforces the idea that beating your child, beating them...this cannot reasonably be called spanking, is okay and in fact that god wants you to do it. That it's good for the children and the only way that they will grow up to be happy and well-adjusted Christian adults.

During open court, Zariah had the opportunity to speak to her parents one more time. She had the courage to accept that opportunity and she had only one thing to ask her adopted parents, and she asked on behalf of her little sister.

"Why did you adopt her? To kill her?"

It's a very telling, very moving quote. The entire situation is awful, heinous, and tragic. These poor children will probably have years of therapy that they'll have to deal with in order to be okay again. These children will now have to contend with the foster care system, as well, which is also not the best place for children to be. But, as of right now, it is their only option. It's just too bad that this sort of thing wasn't found out about long ago, before Zariah was beaten to within an inch of her life, and before her little sister Lydia was tortured and murdered in the name of their fundamentalist Christian adoptive parents' view of their god.

Perry's Texas Miracle is a Texas Sham

We've been hearing about the so-called Texas Miracle for a while. About how, despite everything, Texas has managed to up their job growth. But, is this miracle really a miracle? Is there good and real job growth in the state of Texas? Are things beginning to look like milk and honey compared to the other states?

No, not really. The jobs that are being created are low-age jobs, minimum wage jobs, without any benefits. The adult and child poverty rates are still high. Rent and other things that responsible adults have to pay for in order to have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies and clothes on their backs are too much. Texas is the leader of states with uninsured citizens. There's still a high homeless rate. No matter how hot it is, people stand and sit outside of rescue missions and homeless shelters in the hopes of being allowed in to have a roof over their heads, and still many people are turned away each day, and each night.

Churches try to pick up the slack for anyone who comes to them, especially their own congregation members, but it's not easy and it isn't enough. They can't fix everything for their members and those who come to plead with them.

People who have migrated from their home state to Texas in the hope of getting a better, more fair, shake for themselves and their families have found that it's not what they were led to believe it was and ended up having to stay in homeless shelters or go back to their home state and stay with relatives or friends.

The education system is in shambles. The Texas Miracle really is just a Texas Sham made up to sell the GOP talking points -- "see, it really does work in Texas, so let's do it for the nation!" -- and to sell Rick Perry some votes and support. Hopefully even some financial support.

But, it's just not true. Many have judged the book by the cover, deciding that any job growth is a miracle. But, other states are ahead of Texas in more ways than one and they didn't have a miracle. We don't hear about the Wisconsin Miracle, or the Pennsylvania Miracle, or the Virginia Miracle. Or any of the others. These states and others are out performing Texas when it comes to low unemployment rates.

The truth is, Texas didn't have a miracle at all. What Texas did was put a band-aid with overused adhesive onto the wound. Not only does this band-aid not fix or heal the problem, but it also doesn't stick properly.

So, the next time someone tells you that the GOP way is the right way and cites the Texas Miracle as their proof, remember that it's just a huge Texas Sham with a colorful band-aid and curling edges where the adhesive is trying to come off.

You should also remember that when a band-aid does that it leaves a nasty stain on your skin where the adhesive used to be, due to dirt build-up around the edges.

Mitt Romney's Transparency Problem

Along with the transparency problems that all GOP members have, regardless, Mitt Romney has one that crops up every once in a while during election time. He isn't the first and won't be the last. There's a phenomenon going on where phantom companies will crop up for the sole purpose of donating large amounts of money anonymously to a specific candidate's PAC and then shortly thereafter the company will dissolve.

The purpose of this is so that they get large amounts of funding without having to disclose who or what has given them the money. This money is used to create ad campaigns for the candidate, but without ever letting the average citizen in on where that money is coming from. This is mostly so that you, the average citizen, are unaware of it if that money is coming from a dubious person or entity.

The effort to hide the money trail and to hide the donors is disturbing, because people need to know where that money is coming from. If the money is coming from a dubious donor, its important that the American citizens are aware, because it could influence the politics of the candidate once they are in office. Not to mention it could be rather telling about the candidate and their proposed policies right now. Which is exactly why these phantom companies -- which are not all that legal to begin with -- are created. To stop you from taking a closer look at your candidate, his proposed policies, his record, and his donors.

Like I said, Romney is not the first to have this sort of transparency problem. And he will not be the last. But, he is already becoming notable for it. And, in fact, there are now complaints filed in an attempt to force an investigation and crackdown on these phantom companies.

There is also a call for Mitt Romney himself to denounce the phantom companies and insist he wants real transparency, and insist so loudly. The complaints were filed on behalf of The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Personally, I don't know if I expect a real investigation to take place, or for anything to be done if they do have a real investigation and the findings are that laws have been broken. I also don't think that Mitt Romney is going to declare he wants open transparency when it comes to these things (or anything). I suppose he might, if the pressure gets too intense and threatens to hurt his campaign, but it won't be sincere and there will likely be no attempts on his part or his campaign's part to follow through on such a declaration. The GOP is against open transparency of any sort. Sometimes they pay lip service to wanting transparency, but its usually just lip service. It's all just for show, which is obvious when it comes to looking at their records, individually or collectively. Nothing changes after such statements.

So, don't actually expect much to come from this. It would be a pleasant surprise if something did happen, but it's unlikely. But, do be informed about it. Especially if you, or someone you know, was thinking about voting for this guy come 2012.

Special Report: Pawlenty Drops Out

Despite his optimism immediately after the announcement of his placement in the Iowa straw poll, Pawlenty has decided that he will drop out of the presidential race, after all. He spent a lot of money campaigning in Iowa in hopes of winning, or at least placing higher than he did, in their straw poll and still turned up with sad results. He was hoping that the straw poll would give him a boost for the coming national campaign, but it did not.

He was asked if he would consider being someone else's running mate, but he said he won't even consider that. I guess if he can't be president, he's not going to settle for being vice president. Its all or nothing, dammit!

It should be noted that Pawlenty did not do the absolute worst out of all of those who got votes in the straw poll, including people who were write-ins and were not actually on the ballot. It's really the amount of money he spent there and the exposure he got there, and still managing to place the way that he did, that seems to have been the deciding factor in his dropping out.

He wished Michele Bachmann well, and she did the same for him.

Special Report: Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll

Michele Bachmann has won the Iowa straw poll. Apparently, there were people who bused in to Iowa just for the chance to vote for her. This completely baffles me, but I do know that she has a base who are probably just as bigoted as she is. Since most of them do say that they love her platform. And, that only makes sense, because if you don't love a candidate's platform you probably aren't going to vote for them.

She came in with the most votes at 29 percent, followed by Ron Paul at her heels with 28 percent of the vote. Unfortunately for Tim Pawlenty, he only won 14 percent even though he spent a million smackers on his campaign for that straw poll.

Pawlenty, however, was not deterred. He apparently took this as a blessing in disguise and from all accounts he seems to be intent on continuing his campaign.

I can understand this, though. Even though he came in so poorly, and even though Bachmann won, it really doesn't have a lot of bearing on anything. Its rare, although admittedly not unheard of, for a straw poll winner to go on to become a presidential winner. Likewise for a straw poll loser to stay a loser in a presidential election. Whether or not any of the straw poll participants go on to win the GOP nomination is still a coin toss. And, even if they did, it would still be iffy as to whether they'd actually win the 2012 election.

Personally, I'm not surprised that so many people showed up at this event, even from out of state. They were giving out free barbecue. I can speak from experience when I say that Southerners and Midwesterners do love our barbecue. And we do love free meals. And look...there were both wrapped into one there at many of the the candidates' tents. And I guess while they were there, they figured they might as well vote.

Nevertheless, this mock election makes me want to do a facepalm. Seriously, Iowa? Michele Bachmann was the best out of all of those candidates? I know that the crop you had to choose from was sad and pathetic, but you thought she was the least sad and pathetic? Wow. I mean, I'd have a hard time choosing someone to vote for out of those people, too. But, her? Really? I'm ashamed to call myself a Midwesterner. Especially since I live so close to Iowa.

I personally think that the GOP will ultimately consider her too polarizing and decline to nominate her as their candidate. But, who knows? Right now, it is too soon to tell what the GOP will decide to do. Although, it might be a boon to progressives if this woman is nominated as the official regressive candidate. I don't think it would be difficult to beat her in the elections at all. Which might ultimately be what sinks her nomination with the GOP in favor of a different candidate instead.

Missouri: All Teachers Are Predators

Okay, perhaps they didn't say it like that. But, that's certainly the impression that they give when they pass legislation like the one they recently passed, and which was recently signed by Gov. Jay Nixon.

The legislation in question is known as Senate Bill 54. The bill prohibits teachers and students from being friends on social networking sites, including Facebook, due to the worry that they will be sending private messages back-and-forth about sexual liasons. Well, basically. I mean, that's what it is. The bill is being claimed to be a way to keep children safe from predators.

Yeah, this does sound like a good idea. But, only at first. For one thing, this perpetuates the weird idea that ALL teachers are predators or potential predators. It also perpetuates the mistaken idea that Missouri doesn't already have laws in place that are working to prevent predator teachers from teaching and being around children. In fact, the very proof that our laws are working in this state to keep children safe was twisted into proof that, instead, they were not working and we needed more laws. Nonsense!

Jane Cunningham is an expert liar, perhaps she's even pathological, because most of the stuff she said to promote this bill were lies. When she did manage to tell the truth -- grudgingly, I'm sure -- she made sure to do it in such a way that it twisted into something that it was not.

We do not need this law. Now, thanks to Missouri lawmakers and Gov. Jay Nixon, students have been once again limited in how they can contact their teachers and the mediums in which they might want to report something to a trusted teacher that they don't feel comfortable with doing any other way (like reporting parental abuse of a child...aren't we told that teachers are one option for a child to go to if someone is hurting them?), etc.

In fact, students and teachers being Facebook friends was a major way that many kids were located after the May 22, 2011 tornado that devestated Joplin, MO. Thank science and innovation for cell phones and social networking.

So, now Missouri is the first state to outlaw social media interaction between teachers and students (the bill is also written in such a way that it prohibits e-mails and text messages, as well) based on lies, tainted truth, stupidity, overzealous lawmakers, and Gov. Nixon. And our teachers are now vilified, sending the message that they are not to be trusted by parents and students in the slightest. This can only be detrimental to our school system, our educational system as a whole, and to the future of our state in general.

I'd hold out hope that something can and will still be done about this, regardless of the fact that it has been signed by the governor. But, I'm all out of hope on this one. This was a boneheaded move and its not going to do anything but make things worse.

Thanks a lot, Gov. Nixon. You should have used your veto powers on this bill. Now...well...now, you've screwed things up for everyone. I hope that you and Jane Cunningham are very happy together.

Michele Bachmann Skirts Biblical Question

Michele Bachmann was asked at a debate recently whether she would be submissive to her husband if she was elected president. It was mentioned that she had once said that she didn't want to study tax law, but the Bible told her that she should be submissive to her husband and so she deferred to him and did what he suggested.

It was a few moments before Bachmann answered this question, both due to her likely having to think up a good answer without actually answering, and also because there was a lot of booing going on from the people in the audience.

Once the booing died down, she thanked the man for his question (although I thought it sounded a little sarcastic), and then proceeded to opine a bunch of bullshit that made no attempt at actually answering the question. She talked about how long she'd been married to her husband, and how much she loved him, but I didn't actually hear an answer in there anywhere. Maybe I zoned out and missed it?

But, to be honest, I wasn't expecting one. That's a loaded question for a regressive to have to answer. Usually, they immediately say they'd do whatever the Bible told them to do, but in certain cases even the most crazy and outrageous candidates are aware that they can't do that. The Biblical answer would have been yes, but then this would have raised other concerns. In that case, she would not really be president, her husband would be president. Sure, she'd be the one who got elected, but he would be the one pulling her strings. Also, it would piss off any regressive women who did not like the idea of deferring to their husband all the time.

So, she went with the safe answer. A perhaps smart, if rare, moment for Bachmann. Double-talk is nothing new to politics on both sides, but expect to hear most of it coming from the GOP.

The very idea that this can be a question in such a debate is outrageous, though. The GOP brings it in with their insistance on putting the Bible into law and politics. The Bible is rather misogynistic in nature. Just because men are men, we women should defer to them. We may not be legal property to them, anymore, but we are their spiritual property and there is nothing that says that that is at all a two-way street in the Bible that I've ever seen. I'm sure there might be a passage from Paul or something where he says men should try to be nice to their wives, but that's hardly good enough. You can be nice to a slave, but it doesn't change the fact that that person is a slave and that slavery is wrong. And that's exactly what a question like that assumes; that women are spiritual chattel to their husbands. It has no place in a debate, even when speaking to a member of the GOP.

Unfortunately, even insisting that its important due to knowing whether she would be leading or whether her husband would be leading isn't a good enough reason. She and her husband share the same belief systems and goals, from all that we've seen. It doesn't matter which one of them is pulling the strings, we get the same thing. Thus, the question was even more unnecessary and even more insulting to women than it ordinarily would have been.

Rick Perry's Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome

Well, apparently Rick Perry has managed to shoot himself in the foot again. This man definitely has talent, because I don't know anyone else who can manage this right now. Well, except maybe Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or....okay, I take it back. Its a symptom of the current GOP.

Anyway, he's put himself on the record now as saying that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are all unconstitutional. I don't see why he cares, seeing as he ignores the Constitution whenever he wants to, anyway. Such as with that prayer rally, which had abysmal attendance (my faith in Texas may be restored, yet).

I don't know why he thinks its a good idea to get seniors riled up. A large portion of his base are going to be seniors and people approaching retirement and senior age. They're going to wait their Social Security (which they have paid into since they began working back who knows when), they're going to want their Medicare. Seniors don't tend to like it when you try to take things like this away from them.

But, aside from that, I can't imagine a majority of younger people wanting to go for this, either. Usually, these programs are what younger people look forward to for their retirement and senior years. I was taught to look forward to it, especially Social Security retirement benefits. Its supposed to work sort of like a trust fund. You pay money into it while you're able-bodied and working. When you reach a certain age, you get that money you paid into it back via retirement checks. Its YOUR money. Not the government's money. But, they'd like to have you think its their money.

As for Medicaid and Medicare, these programs help people get the health care that they need. Medicaid helps children more often than it helps adults. Medicare helps seniors. There are issues with fraud in these programs, but those can be dealt with without having to get rid of the programs or make cuts to the programs. Those can be dealt with by closing loopholes, by holding the fraudsters accountable, making the punishments less of a joke and enforcing them, even when its doctors and hospitals which perpetuate the fraud. If you have Medicaid or Medicare, and you go into the hospital for something the hospital will tend to bill Medicaid or Medicare (whichever you've got) more than they would bill YOU if you were uninsured. They do this because they can. Sometimes, they double-charge, and triple-charge. Because, they can. Stop those things from happening, hold those that commit the fraud accountable in a meaningful way and it WILL stop. Or, at least, it will become much less common.

People need these programs, because without them some people will have absolutely no healthcare at all. And, I know that some people don't have sympathy for anyone who is unable to provide their own money for their own healthcare, but I wonder what kind of sympathy they'll expect whenever the shoe ends up on the other foot. Because, it will most of the time. Eventually. The members of the younger generation today who are pushing for abolishment of these programs are not just hurting others, they're hurting themselves, and if this shit actually comes to pass they'll realize it when they get older, or if they fall on hard times they could not have avoided no matter how hard they tried. For their sake, and mine, and all the others who would be immediately affected by the abolishment of these programs, I really hope that never comes to pass and they can go on living in blissful ignorance.

Further, I don't really understand why he thinks these things are unconstitutional, anyway. I think it boils down to his preference that they be unconstitutional. That is how he interprets the parts of the Constitution that deal with general welfare, because that's what's convenient for the platform he's running on. When asked, he has no idea what the Founding Fathers meant by general welfare and he cannot answer. Instead he comes up with a bullshit excuse about not wanting to sit there and hash it out.

I don't know what it is with the GOP hopefuls and doing their very best to alienate their own base and ruin the country. But, I'm glad that they're too stupid to hide their real agendas. It'll make it difficult for them to win and screw up the country even further.

Romney Gets Heckled

Apparently, Mitt Romney managed to get himself heckled at an appearance he made in Iowa. He was speaking to a crowd two days before the Ames Straw Poll, when he began to do what most Regressives do these days. Lie.

One of the bigger deals that's being made out of what he said is his "corporations are people" nonsense. It made no sense to the crowd, and neither did half of the other things he said, so instead of biting their tongues and pretending not to hear...they did what any good citizen would do. They spoke up. Well, actually, they shouted out.

Personally, I think they did a good job of schooling him, considering the platform they had to work with didn't involve a microphone and stage the way that his platform did. But, like with most Regressives, it just went in one ear and out the other. He not only refused to address their concerns in a manner that wasn't mocking, but he spoke to them as you might speak to your child when you're angry with him and telling him that something is the way it is because you darn well say so and that's just that. You know that tone I'm talking about? Yeah, that one. That tone that you got when you were being rebellious to your parents, or the principal's tone when he was lecturing you for something.

He also made it sound like since it was only his opinion it shouldn't matter in the long run to his presidential campaign. That's seriously the tone he used, saying that it was his opinion and if you didn't agree with it well...that was okay, because it was just his opinion. Which strikes me as quite odd, because if you're talking about policy and law...and you're up for elected office (especially if that elected office is the President of the United States of America) then your opinion is no longer personal and private, because if you win that election you will be using that opinion to govern. So, yes, its important for the people who might be voting for you to know where you stand on these things and also to take them into account when deciding on whom to vote for. If your opinions on those matters are unsound and ridiculous, then yeah...it should definitely count against you.

And, once he was done talking and making his "goodbye" comments, he made sure to pin it on just being the few in the front who "made sure to get there early," to "make their voices heard," and whom "probably wouldn't be voting for him." The way that he said it, the phrasing and the tone of voice, said a lot. It said that he had no real respect for those people, that their concerns and opinions didn't matter to him because they were not the same as his own (not a good thing for any person who wants to be elected to office, but especially not for a presidential hopeful). He mocked them, making them seem like troublemakers. All because they had the audacity to show up to listen to him give a speech and didn't like some of if it and told him so.

Apparently, according to Mitt Romney its only okay to make your voice heard if you're a fellow Regressive and if you're the type of fellow Regressive who agrees with everything that he has to say and doesn't make waves and whom will sit there while smiling and nodding at him like good little boys and girls.

Even if I were a Regressive, I wouldn't vote for a guy like that.

Another thing that he needs to be aware of, however, is that even his fellow Regressive constitutents as a majority are not happy with the Citizens United ruling. The movement to have that ruling changed or to have something done to fix it (like making a constitutional amendment) some other way is largely bipartisan. And if he's going to run for president and actually wants to win, he'd better start schooling himself on what his constituents think, not just what his fellow Regressive lawmakers and Tea Party lawmakers think. Because, the citizens do not agree with him, by and large in a bipartisan majority, that corporations are people.

I don't know if those hecklers really were just a few and really were just in the front (it sounded like more than just a few, and some of them sounded like they may be coming from the back, but sounds alone can be decieving), but he dismissed them as troublemakers, probably as progressive infiltrators of his speech...but it's unlikely they were troublemakers so much as concerned and educated constituents who also happened to be part of his Regressive base.

Note to Mitt Romney: I wouldn't alienate your own base if I were you. Not if you actually want to win a presidential campaign. I think an apology is in order to those people. But, I don't expect that one will be forthcoming.