Archive for minorities – Page 2

GOP's Secret Plan For Equal Pay To Women & Minorities?


Top Secret file50 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in an effort to abolish wage discrimination based on gender. Half a century later, the Obama administration is pushing Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, designed to make wage differences more transparent. Republicans in the House are against it, just the thought of women making the same as men for doing the same job in the same location is abhorrent to everything the GOP stands for. When the Paycheck Fairness Act came up for a vote this past April, Republicans immediately killed the effort by a vote of 226 to 192 -- party lines. No misogyny there!

The Republicans are constantly being accused of opposition to plans while never offering up an alternative. Well, this time they have one. Here's an advanced look at their secret Memorandum, smuggled out to us from UltraViolet:


How To Build A Republican


sugar and spice

Remember growning up there was a little nursery rhyme that spoke about what little boys and little girls are made of:

"What Are Little Boys Made Of?

What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And everything nice,
That's what little girls are made of.

Ah, such simpler times. And such simple ingredients.

That got me to thinking about applying ingredients to a boiling cauldron and making a member of today's GOP. What would it take? What kind of ingredients make that peculiar type of boy or girl who lacks any sense of common decency, imbued without compassion, filled with hate and inbred to the point that common sense and logic defy their grasp. So shiftless and aimless are they that they're starting to resemble the walking dead.

Then one day, their national party, led by Reince Priebus declared a plan to enrich their ranks. They were going to target specific groups to try to woe them over to their dark side.

Mighty was this plan and perhaps a bit overwhelming as there were so many deficiencies in their current make-up, they took the brave step to announce "change." They were going to seek out new targets to enlist in their quest for world domination, and suppression of all that was not theirs. They were going to become -- wait for it -- more mainstream.

To do that they needed a plan. Something tricky. Something shrewd. After all, they needed to convert so many of their adversaries. So they began with a public announcement that they would seek to enlarge their tent by going after women, minorities, immigrants, the young and the LGBT people.

They decided to be bold. They dusted off an old advertising campaign tactic-- the negative sell. Yes, they'd get people to come to them by fighting against everything that their intended targets were for.

The negative sell. So, how's that working out for you, Republicans? You shut down the government. You passed restrictive anti-voter registration and ID laws, you pushed back women's rights by tightening contraception/abortion restrictions, you became an obstacle to equal pay between the sexes, you blocked immigration reform and for your crowning glory, you've become the party of the anti-gay. You've done everything the people didn't want.

You are consistent if nothing else -- (and nothing else might be in a dead heat with you right now, syphilis and gonorrhea nipping at your heels). Despite the public's overwhelming positions contrary to yours on all of these issues, you've stuck with the unpopular negative stands.

I guess you all, led by the ever-clever Chairman Priebus, didn't take into account the masses might not get your negative sell. And when an audience doesn't know that you're joking, they think you mean what you say. And what you say is mean. It's not possible that you could really represent all those polarizing positions? It would be naive, maybe stupid, possibly even backfire on you.

Wake up. It has. You couldn't be any less popular than you are. Your obstinance in still plowing forward with your march toward ruination or ruin-a-nation can be encapsulated in this clip: Your homophobic stance and how it flies in the face of public opinion. I guess desperate people say and do desperate things. Don't forget to shut the lights and close the door behind you on your exit to oblivion.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Cartoons of the Day- Outreach GOP Style


Clay Bennett editorial cartoon

Clay Bennett


Chan Lowe


Pat Bagley


Chan Lowe


Voter Fairness Must Include Forgiveness


Mercedies Harris

I bet it must be a bitch to have to live with the tag 'felon' for the rest of your life. I think the classification of what constitutes a felony is quite vast, and something maybe need to be adjusted. Or maybe our classifications of crimes needs an overhaul. As an example. Murder, rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, easily those are felonies.

Possession of marijuana, tax evasion, possessing stolen property, even viewing of child pornography are all bad. They're all wrong. But do your penance, do your time and when you get out, you should be free to continue living. These are generally non-violent crimes. Yet commit any of these and in some states you're prohibited from voting. Yup, that's right. You're no longer allowed to help chose who represents you. Why? And if you can answer that, then question why some states allow it, and others don't. Some have a waiting period and some allow you to vote immediately.

Here is the case of Mercedies Harris, as covered The American Prospect this week.

Mercedies Harris was 27 in 1990, when he was arrested for drug possession and distribution in Fairfax, Virginia. Harris had served in the Marines, but the death of his brother in 1986—killed by a hit-and-run driver—sent him down a familiar path. “I was angry and I couldn’t find the guy who did it,” Harris says. “I got into drugs to find a way to medicate myself.”

He did his time and then was released. Non-violent offense. But he's a felon. Admitting his past indiscretion and his criminal conviction, he found it hard to find housing, a job, even getting a drivers license.

But he found one obstacle that was especially difficult to overcome: He couldn't vote. Virginia is one of four states—along with Florida, Iowa, and Kentucky—that strip voting rights from felons for life for all felons.

Seven states—Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming—have lifetime bans for particular crimes or repeat felony offenders.

In Virginia alone, 450,000 residents are disenfranchised. In Florida, the total is an astonishing 1.5 million. (These and several other numbers in this article were gathered from the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.)

So this is actually large numbers we're talking about, and in just two states. By conservative estimate,

More than five million Americans are currently disenfranchised because of felony convictions.

This idea that a lifetime ban for felons to vote makes the U.S. the only country in the world to prohibit permanent voting disenfranchisement.

As I've said before, but we're not talking about a small effective pool of people. We're talking about your next door neighbor, your barber, your cab driver or you car mechanic. You trust them with your safety and your possessions. Can't we trust them with their vote?


50 Shades of USA


50 equal States

Before you get nervous and start pulling out the old magnifying glass, here's a link to the larger equal population USA map. Take a moment if you wish, to go check out what state you'd be living in when we christen the New America.

How many times have you started a sentence with, "All things being equal..."

Well, a fellow named Neil Freeman put this map together as an art project, or as he says, "not a serious proposal." Don't you just love it when someone qualifies their presentation? Actually, it's a bit Jules Vernian, but I like it. I like it a lot. So Neil, relax, I'm not going to criticize. I'm going to congratulate you on what must have been painstaking.

Each state in Freeman's redrawn America has a population of roughly 6,175,000.

Many state capitals were maintained in Freeman's configuration; otherwise, large or central cities were chosen. Suggested names of the new states, he adds, were taken mainly from geographical features, including mountain ranges (Adirondack, Blue Ridge, Ozark), peaks (Mammoth), rivers (Susquehanna), lakes (Salt Lake), plants (Yerba Buena) and even caves (Shiprock).

Equalizing the population of each state would then provide them with the same number of congressional representatives in both houses. Accordingly, this equalizes the electoral college, preserving its structure and function -- simultaneously ending the over representation of small states and under representation of large states in presidential voting.

The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. The largest state is 66 times as populous as the smallest and has 18 times as many electoral votes. This allows for Electoral College results that don't match the popular vote.

Everything in the New U.S. of A. would be equal in regards to population by pure numbers. This doesn't mean there won't be states more ethnic than others. Hell, that exists today. Whites are a minority in both Texas and California and that trend is growing.

Oh, and in case you were worrying about the District of Columbia -- it's included into the new state of Washington (on the east coast; not to be confused with what is now Ranier and Shasta), with the Mall, major monuments and Federal buildings set off as the seat of the federal government.


Cartoons of the Day- War On Drugs


August 20, 2013

Adam Zyglis


Deb Milbrath


Paul Fell


Justice [sic] Scalia: “It's not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections."


magic smaller

Newsflash!! The courts can actually invent new minorities! Like magic! Or so believes Supreme Court "Justice" Scalia.

Have we finally concluded that the words "justice" and "Scalia" should never be juxtaposed? Talk about an oxymoron. But I digress.

Via The Hill:

Speaking at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society in Montana, Scalia said the high court should not intervene on issues such as wiretapping and “inventing” new minorities, according to reports.

It's not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia said, in an apparent reference to the court's recent decisions on gay marriage and federal benefits for same-sex couples.

Scalia said courts should not create new rights, leaving that to constitutional changes or to Congress.

Really, Activist Judge S.? "Create new rights"? As in civil? And equal? And voting? And women's? Those rights? So according to Scalia, those do not currently exist and must be conjured up out of thin air. How just of him.

Note to Scalia: See: Constitution, U.S. That would be the document that not only explains all those rights, but it is also the law of the land and determines that your version, the one that favors only conservative white males, is pretty skewed.

But wait! There's more! Scalia is also under the illusion that courts can "invent new minorities," implying that 1) like the GOP definition of rape, some minorities are apparently "illegitimate" and are not yet, nor should they be, recognized, and 2) discrimination and threats against these pretend minorities are mere figments of their fake-minority imaginations.

No, Judge S., minorities do actually exist and don't need to be "invented", they are and have been the targets of undeniably, indisputably real prejudice, bigotry, and injustice.

Now, can we as a country stop inventing new ultra-conservative judicial standards and creating opportunities for illegitimate judges who get special protections?