Not so Happy Trails in South Carolina. The Ballad of Mark Sanford

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ok, who broke the media?

So it turns out there is a major development coming out of the Boston Bombing case that has nothing to do with the Bombers, and its a development the media itself refuses to cover. And with good reason, see that development is that the media is absolutely totally fucking broken.......and no one really gives a shit.

Now when I mean broken I'm not talking about the right wing whack jobs out there, who are claiming the Bombers arnt Caucasian, despite the fact that the Bombers are from Chechnya, which is actually right in the middle of the Caucasus, the region of the world that is the namesake of the world Caucasian. No those people are idiots and usually fringe whack jobs so no one sane gives them any real attention anyways.

No what I'm talking about is the sheer number of supposedly credible and "mainstream" news organizations making massive blunders in coverage and the very low number (read: zero) of corrections or apologies that have resulted.

The most infamous  and pretty much the only panned and mocked example of this was on CNN, where John King announced police had identified a "dark skinned man" as the bomber and an arrest had been made. An hour later King went back on the air and read a statement from the police saying no suspect had been identified, and anyone who mentioned arrest was way too far ahead of the facts.

Here's the thing though. It wasn't just John King, a couple minutes before King's report the AP reported that an arrest "was imminent". And FOX news and CBS Boston followed CNN's reporting. The Boston Globe went on to add that not only was the suspect arrested, but he was on his way to the Boston Court House.

Just as an example, all the groups I listed had similar issues in about the same time-span. I just happened to find the meme about FOX

The Crowd outside the Boston Court House, following the botched reporting in the Globe

And here's the thing, All of those groups I listed were WRONG. But its important to note, NOT everyone was wrong. NBC went on the air minutes after King's incorrect report on CNN, correctly reporting no arrest had been made. Rutgers had actually beaten NBC, reporting even BEFORE the initial CNN report, that no arrest had been made.

So this isnt a case of the wrong information getting passed out, this is a case of CNN/FOX/AP/et al, sucking at their jobs.

So what happens when you get pretty much every aspect of a report totally wrong (no arrest, more then one suspect, dark skinned, ect). These days? Nothing.

As far as apologies or retractions only CNN even attempted to issue a statement:

“CNN had three credible sources on both local and federal levels. Based on this information we reported our findings. As soon as our sources came to us with new information we adjusted our reporting.”

In other words, we arnt apologizing for being wrong because it wasnt our fault we were wrong, its our sources. Its not like we are a news organization or anything, so their is no reason to expect we would be right or wrong about any issue based on hearsay.

None of the other groups even had the balls to say that though.

Nor was that mistake the only mistake.

The New York Post first reported 12 people had been killed in the blast (instead of 3, like everyone else was) then a few days later ran this front page:

Except not really. Cause these guys had nothing to do with anything.

They got the suspects totally wrong (read: found a picture of brown skinned folks with book-bags talking and decided that must mean they were guilty so ran with it), no apologies or retractions. And heres the more shocking thing, that was the SECOND time the Post had been wrong. On the day of the bombing itself, the Post had put an article online that said a Saudi man was a suspect, and being guarded by police at a local hospital.

That story was picked up and reported by NBC, CBS and the LA Times before it was debunked as totally false the next day by the Washington Post. Also FOX sent a camera crew to interview/harass the Saudi non-suspect's (he was actually a victim) college roommate. The Boston Globe meanwhile reported a different person of interest was being interviewed at a different Hospital. Also not true.

Other not true things reported include the "discovery of more bombs" which was reported by the New York Times and the Wallstreet Journal, and the reporting of an attack at the JFK library as well.

Although to be fair, the media SHOULD get a pass on that last one. That story was actually broken by the Boston Police, but still happened to be wrong. The thing is, if the media was doing its job, that would have been the ONLY incorrect story of the coverage.

And none of this even counts some of the inane and really fucking stupid things that were said and done by the major network's that were clearly legitimate mistakes, that didnt really effect coverage.

AND

Funny, they dont look alike

Actually they do have the same hair color.

Problem is though, while normally those errors might be funny or mockable, the sad fact is, the reason they didnt get much attention is because of how much of a joke the rest of the coverage was.

In fact I want you to do a quick search/find of this post right now, and I want you to look up the words "fired" "disciplined" "corrected" "taken steps to avoid such mistakes in the future"

Notice anything? except for the mention above, they never came up, and thats not because I didnt post the statements to any of those effects by the media.....its because the media didnt make them.

This isnt the first major story the media as a group botched (hello Obamacare ruling), but usually a single botch gets some kind of apology on air, at an absolute minimum even if the apology is ridiculous. Again take the CNN Obamacare example

"In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts initially said that the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. CNN reported that fact, but then wrongly reported that therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional. However, that was not the whole of the Court’s ruling. CNN regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error."

I mean apologizing for rushing to a camera before reading page two is pretty ridiculous, but at least its better then the current stratigy of pretending nothing went wrong and do nothing to fix it.

Near as i can tell this really is the news media equivalent of "maybe if we dont move they wont see us". The only question is, will it work?

And well the fact that it got this far in the first place, that its no longer a single mistake or slip of the tongue, suggests that so far it has been.

And thats the sad shitty shape of American media today.

The Vagina Monologue

So, dear reader, I have a question are you a vagina or are you a Man?  When you applied for your job (and I assume you have one) when you got the voluntary self disclosure part did you check the "M" box or the "V" box? When you use the restroom do you go in the door that says "Gentlemen" or the one that says "Vagina"

What's that you say, your a woman? what is that? thats not the educated term for it at all. If you dont believe me just as Republican New Hampshire State Rep. Peter T. Hasan.

See NH just debated a bill repealing part of its "Stand your Ground" law.

Now I know what your thinking, isnt "Stand your ground" a gun control issue and has nothing at all to do with anything that should ever be near a vagina? You'd think so, but your not a well educated mind.

See Rep Hasan opposed the proposed bill stating in an email

"What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims."

In case you missed it, let me highlight the "problem"

"Why children and vagina's of course."

Not you know "Children and Women" (or the more classic Women and Children), or even Females, Ladies, ect ect. Thats because Rep Hasan knows the truth, "Women""ladies" ect are just synonymous that refer to the "vagina support system". You know like the legs that are responsible for bringing the vagina to our beds and then opening to allow access. The mouth, which is used to keep the vagina alive (and as a surrogate vagina during the one week a month the vagina is closed to visitors), ect ect.

No seriously, I'm playing it up a bit, but thats basically Rep Hasan's excuse for using the word Vagina.

See when a colleague, State Rep. Rick Watrous, called him on it saying:

"Children and vagina's"??!! Are you really using "vaginas" as a crude catch-all for women? Really?

Please think before you send out such offensive language on the legislative listserve.[email]"
Rep Hasan responded by saying:

"Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche,"
See like I said, every fairly well educated mind knows the only part of a women that matters is her vagina.

And like he said it is a well founded communication strategy. And I can vouch for that. Seriously you would not believe how easily I get laid after I drop my two favorite pick of lines "Whats a nice vagina like you doing in a place like this?" and "you're one of the most attractive vagina's I've ever met."

Seriously, any guy can back me up on that, calling her a pretty vagina ALWAYS leads to sexy time.

Actually to be fair after getting backlash from the state Republican Chairman, Jennifer Horn (who happens to be a vagina) who said:
"Representative Hansen's comments are crude, offensive and have no place in public discourse, Horn said in a statement Tuesday. "There is no excuse for anybody to use such disrespectful language -- especially an elected official. I strongly condemn his disrespectful and shameful remarks."

Rep. Hasan backed off his original comments, stating that:

"Can there be any doubt my comment is being misinterpreted and taken completely out of context? It was not, and is not, my intention to demean women at any time. It is apparent that the intent of my remarks has been misinterpreted, the true goal of the message lost and for that I apologize to those who took offense."

See he didnt MEAN to call his states Governor, BOTH senators, and BOTH members of the US House, and every other woman in his state "vagina's". In fact he only meant to imply that women are much more helpless then men, and more akin to children WITHOUT being insulting.

And if you'd only consider the context, you'd see that's all he means.

The context of course being that Rep. Peter T. Hasan is actually, ironically, just a huge dick.....

Chained CPI clusterfuck.

So if you've been paying any attention to the fiscal politics of our country in the last two years you've probably heard of the Grand Bargain, or President Obama's belief/proposal to fix our deficit problem with a plan that will actually address the issue, and attack the sacred cows of both sides.

To that end President Obama has for years now been proposing a change to "Chained CPI" benefits of social security.

To put that in plain English, Obama's plan would change the way social security funds are calculated, specifically by making them pay less.

And here's the thing, turns out people HATE that. As in EVERYONE, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, and especially the elderly.

Yet despite that, the Obama administration has been floating the idea since AT LEAST July of 2011.

Basically here's how the history plays out.

in 2011, Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Obama offers "Grand Bargain  with CPI cuts. Liberals raise holy hell over the CPI cuts.  Liberals rendered moot when House Republicans reject the plan.

Then Congress forms supercommittee in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Obama offers "Grand Bargain  with CPI cuts as solution supercommittee. Supercommittee rejects the plan and fails to produce anything.

In 2012 Due to Supercommittee failure, massive budget cuts and tax hikes, (called the fiscal clifft) set to kick in. Obama offers "Grand Bargain" with CPI cuts as "replacement". . Liberals raise holy hell over the CPI cuts.  Liberals rendered moot when House Republicans reject the plan.

in 2013 Fiscal cliff partly averted by kicking the cuts part down the road a few months (AKA the sequester). In an attempt to stave off the cuts congress wants to replace sequester with other cuts. So Obama offers "Grand Bargain  with CPI cuts. . Liberals raise holy hell over the CPI cuts. Liberals rendered moot when House Republicans reject the plan.

Sequester goes into effect. However due to staggered effect, it is still possible to stave off some of the cuts. So (you all can guess this next part) Obama offers "Grand Bargain  with CPI cuts. . Liberals raise holy hell over the CPI cuts. Liberals rendered moot when House Republicans reject the plan.

BUT THEN: Republicans announce their intention to run against the Chained CPI cuts in the 2014 election and to paint themselves as the defenders of entitlements. At the same time Reporter gets bright idea to ask administration why they keep proposing this idea everyone seems to hate. The reply, per press secretary Jay Carney is that the insertion of the Chained CPI "comes at the specific request of behest of Republican leaders."

Seriously? WTF? that is the biggest and/or dumbest fucking excuse you guys could have come up with.

1)Do you know how negotiations work? You tell the other side what you want ideally, they tell you what they want ideally, and you go from there. You dont go "how about I tell you what I want, unless you dont want it, in which case I'll replace it with what you want". This is doubly true in lawmaking where the final bill NEVER resembles the first draft, so why give up something this early anyways?

2) If it was at their request, why didnt you force them to actually formally REQUEST IT? I mean did you not realize it was super unpopular? they sure as hell did, which is why they wanted you to bring it up....so you'd look like the bad guy.

3) building from that, even assuming it was at their request (which just to be clear I dont think it was), ok that explains the first offer.....but after they shot you down and attacked you for it, you included it again? You know what that reminds me of?

It's fitting as well that thing is on an endless loop. See most people learn after the first couple of time, Lucy is gonna move the god damn football. So if the GOP really did make this request and you STILL have figured out they are gonna move the football your a fucking retard.

4) Again, given that I dont actually think the GOP made this request.......seriously? How stupid do you think the rest of us are? For anyone paying attention its a well known fact Obama is a fiscal conservative (in modern terms anyways), despite what the right wing would tell you. He's been on a crusade since day 1 to "fix the debt crisis" and prove how serious he is about it.

Oh and by the way, again for those of us paying attention, as pointed out before WE HEARD YOU PITCH THE SAME THING BEFORE.

I guess we should just be glad you didnt cut and run this blatantly on HealthCare (well except for the running from the single payer idea), Gun Control and Immigration......

Oh but to be fair the insanity is just getting started.

Remember how I said every time Obama pitched this idea, the GOP rejected it out of hand? Well that was all the handiwork of Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.   Now after their most recent rejection of this idea, Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor had this to say:

"While the president has backtracked on some of his entitlement reforms that were in conversations that we had a year and a half ago, he does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget." (Boehner)

and

"If the President believes, as we do, that programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the path to bankruptcy, and that we actually can do some things to put them back on the right course and save them to protect the beneficiaries of these programs, we ought to do so." (Cantor)

That's right, after rejecting the idea out of hand for the last 18 months, Boehner and Cantor suddenly decided to come out in support of the idea.

Now on the one hand, this does lend some credibility to the presidents claim the GOP did request this, but if thats true WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING NO? Also more the the point, how can you reject the proposal (again) while also being in favor of it?

Also I should point out this isnt a universal shift. See Rep Greg Walden runs the NRCC, basically the group in charge of all the republican house elections in 2014. And he had this to say on behalf of the NRCC:

"I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” 

So he is clearly against it, and wants to use it as a central issue to run ALL republicans in the House or prospective candidates against it, and blame the democrats for it.

That being the same issue his own leadership JUST endorsed, actually just a few hours before he came out against it.

And heres the final insane twist. Walden was appointed to head the NRCC by Speaker Boehner, and could be removed by the same. Now Boehner disagrees with Walden on the GOP's stand as a party on this issue. But still hasnt replaced Walden for undercutting the message Boehner wants the party to take.

So to sum up as far as Chained CPI goes:

On the one side, we have the Obama Administration who have made this a top priority/suggestion for almost 2 years, and have always been in favor.... EXCEPT its a republican idea they dont support and only brought up as a favor to the GOP....

On the other, we have a republican party that rejected this idea out of hand for almost the last 2 years......EXCEPT actually support it, BUT still want to run against it and use it against the Democrats (Who by the way, with a few exceptions have always opposed it) claiming its a horrible idea and an attack on seniors, that they themselves support.

Seriously if anybody can make any sense out of ANY of this.....other than both sides have totally tripped over their own feet and have no fucking clue what they are doing on this issue, please go right ahead, that's what the comment section is for, because I QUIT.

This week in stupid. Blind Date edition.

So its been a while since I did one of these, but finally their is enough stupid to merit its return.
And as an apology to all my fans (well my 1 fan) we have something kinda special for you this week, see this week all of our stupid comments of the week are being paired up on blind dates, where hopefully they can find true ignorance with another stupid comment.

Our first pairing are stanching anti gay republican's Paul Broun and Saxby Chambliss both of Georgia. Now this is already a match made in heaven as Broun, currently a congressman has announced his intention to run for the Senate seat that is being vacated by Senator Chambliss. So clearly this couple is already working in sync and hit their groove. Now what do they say that convinces me they would be perfect for each other?

Well here's Senator Chambliss' comments on why he opposes same sex marriage:

"I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one,"

And here's Congressman Broun on why he opposes health insurance covering sex change operations:

"I don't want to pay for a sex-change operation, I'm not interested. I like being a boy."

Now first off let me snicker over the use of the word Boy instead of man. I mean usually I think by the time you reach the Congressman's age, your well past being a "boy". But then again, maybe puberty has come late for the congressman.

But yea see, these two would be perfect for each other. If it wont happen to them, its clearly not something that should be allowed.

Which means following that logic I today am calling for the government banning all lottery winnings, all game show prizes, all pay raises, and all girls who havnt yet had sex with me from having sex with anyone else.

I mean after all, Im never gonna win the lottery, be on a game show, get a pay raise (at least not for a while) or have sex with that really hot girl I know... so why should you be allowed to do any of that crap?

Our next couple actually has a bit of an international flair but has discovered even oceans cant stop true idiocy. Please welcome Georgia State Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart, and English Golden Globe, Academy, Tony and Emmy award winning actor Jeremy Irons.

Now this couple really enjoys philosophical and theoretical questions such as Mrs Everharts rational for being against gay marriage:

“Say you had a great job…what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits?”  

Or perhaps her date, Mr. Irons', rational for the same saying if gay marriage was legalized:

"Could a father not marry his son?"

I predict a long and happy future for this couple as they muse such hard questions as if heterosexual marriage is legal "say your gay and your friend is a lesbian, and you had a great job, what would prohibit you from saying that you're straight and y'all get married and still live as separates, but you get all the benefits?"

Or assuming they have legal hetrosexual marriage in England "Could a father not marry his daughter?"

These deep questions, and the inability to think of them, should keep Mrs. Everhart and Mr. Irons' busy and happy for decades to come.

Finally our winner, who's kinda bending the rules a bit, is former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Now Brown didnt bring a date to today's events but thats fine as it turns out he's his own date and maybe his own mistress as well.

You see Former Senator Brown wants to be a Senator again.....just not from Massachusetts. According to former Senator Brown, his future self will be the Senator from the state he was born in:

"New Hampshire’s like a second home, I was born at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. My mom and sister and family live here. Spent summers here growing up. Have a house here. Been a taxpayer for 20 years."

One slight problem for Former Senator Brown's dreams of a future with Future Senator Brown.....it turns out Portsmouth Naval Shipyard isnt actually in New Hampsire, despite being named after the town of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. See the Naval Shipyard is located across the Piscataqua River from Portsmouth in the town of Kittery.....in the state of Maine. Oops, thats a little awkward.....

So yea, I'm not exactly sure how long Future Senator Brown is going to put up with the man who supposedly dreams about him, Former Senator Brown, accidentally mentioning something about another state in a moment of passion.

I'm just saying, when you cant even tell people where you were born without screwing up, its not a good sign for your future. Which is why Former Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Future Senator Brown of New Hampshire  and the home-wrecking Baby Brown of Maine, are sharing the prize for the Stupidest comment of the week.

Defending against the terror of a face to face encounter with a Vagina.

Ok so I'm about to relate a story about the most traumatic experience of my life, or the life of any young man. (and one that I'm a little reluctant to share, since my mother occasionally reads my blog)

Now in my case, the week started like any other. It was a nice normal week, Except at some point I ran into a pretty girl and we got to talking, and talking led to kissing, and kissing lead to even more.

Which likely explains how it was, unexpectedly and completely out of the blue I found myself face to "face" with a vagina. And holy shit is that thing scary.

Dont get me wrong, I'd spent most of my teen's trying to get to this point, although the reason why I was supposed to want to get here had always eluded me. But suddenly BOOM there I was, and BOOM their is wasnt.

Cause yea, that was my first thought, "where the hell is it"? I mean I didnt know much about vagina's, although I'd heard a myth that every so often they randomly start bleeding. And some joker had even told me babies came out of there. So i gotta be honest, I'd been expecting something bigger. And preferably something that came with a map, or directions. I mean after all I didnt want to end up covered in blood. Didnt help the pretty girl was telling me I needed to find her clit, whatever the fuck that was. I mean hell I could barely see an opening, and now your telling me this thing has PARTS? And the thing is, I know the entire future of my dating life forever was riding on this moment.

Well lets flash forward a few years. Not surprisingly I'm single. And I still dont know what a clit is. In hindsight I think the whole thing was a massive joke that all of my friends were in on just to see how gullible I was. Clits dont exist, and their is no way a baby is coming out of a hole that small without magic, and anything that bleeds for that many days will die.

Luckily for the generations of Men yet to come, the republican party is here to protect us from women and their evil magic holes.  Or at least one state is, Virginia (or whatever the eventually rename themselves too to avoid being confused with Vagina).

In 2003 the supreme court struck down all anti sodomy laws in the case Lawrence V Texas. Now it should be pointed out that legally sodomy is more then just Anal Sex. legally sodomy is any kind of genital contact with any other part of the another's body that isnt their genitals.

Since then it's been perfectly legal for any one to engage in any kind of sex, which as we all know led to the victimization of men such as myself as we got tricked over and over into finding ourselves with our heads between some girls legs trying to find the imaginary clit. The whole time our date was secretly laughing at us, knowing that we wont find it, and she could use that as an excuse to deny us sex, and refuse to return the favor even though we did pay for dinner AND the movie (not that I'm bitter or anything).

Except in Virginia.

See years ago Virginia a young state senator named Ken Cuccinelli, helped prevent changes to a law called the “Crimes Against Nature” statue, which reads as follows.

"If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Now the change State Senator Cuccinelli prevented would have added an exception for consenting adults who wanted to commit those acts with other consenting adults. And its a good thing too. I mean after all, I myself am living proof, consenting adults are stupid. I mean i did consent to find a body part (clit) that doesnt actually exist. And I mean I've also consented multiple times to putting my penis in a mouth filled with a lot of rather hard, sharp teeth, powered by the most powerful joint in the body.

What I'm saying is clearly I'm exercising poor judgement left and right here, and this is a place where the government really should step in to protect me from my own stupidity. Unlike the slut I knocked up a few years back. I mean she should have known the condom was gonna break so its totally her fault for getting preggers. She's not entitled to any protection for her stupidity, even if she did follow the law and refuse to take it in the butt.

Anyways now a days that state senator is now the Attorney General of the Great State of Virginia, and possibly their future governor as well . And he's back to leading the fight to make sure dicks only get stuck where Almighty God intended for them to go.

See as is actually somewhat common in these situations, the State of Virginia never actually repealed the “Crimes Against Nature” law following Lawrence they just stopped enforcing it, which usually has the same effect and is easier to do. Except AG Cuccinelli just added it on to the charges against a convicted pedophile, knowing full well that would cause the charge to be found unconstitutional, and there fore hopefully allow it to be appealed to the supreme court, and used to over turn Lawrence. Then we can all get back to having sex the way god intended (missionary) and be protected from our own stupidity.

Now of course the fact that, should Cuccinelli lose, he might accidentally free a pedophile isnt really that important. I mean after all, the two 17 year old skanks that got on their knees and blew him are themselves criminals (specifically a class 6 felon according to the Crimes Against Nature law). In other words, they both had it coming (pun not intended).

Plus really isnt winning a lifetime crusade worth the risk? especially for someone like Cuccinelli, who likely was himself a victim of either having his penis stuck between two rows of teeth, stuck going up a one way street or, like me, face down for several hours trying to find an invisible body part with his tongue.

After all when Mother Jones asked him "if Cuccinelli or anyone working for his campaign had ever engaged in any of the prohibited conduct and whether Cuccinelli would fire any campaign staff who had done so."  He refused to answer the questions.

And good for him. I mean after all its really no one else's business what you stuck in/or have stuck in your mouth, anus or any other bodily orifice. So really he has no need to answer the question, its not like getting head from some hottie is a crime or anything. 

What the fuck is in the drinking water? North Carolina edition

Ok so I gotta be honest, I was really hoping my Iowa edition of this really would be the only one. I should have known better,  especially since I did kinda do a Michigan edition and West Virginia edition of this before I came up with the catchy name. And now with the North Carolina edition, this looks like its going to be a regular thing.

Now like my other official edition, and the unofficial Michigan, the big take away here is that ALL of these very bad bills were introduced at the same time. Given enough time all states introduce a list of insane bills, its the shear quantity at once.

First up I will start with the one bill on this list that wont become law, because the backlash against the overwhelming amount of stupid already got the sponsor to pull it.

Heres the objectionable part of the bill

"The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.”
Now if you think the last part of that sounds familiar, your probably thinking of this

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That would be the first amendment to the United States Constitution saying the exact opposite of what North Carolina is saying.

Now to be fair their is an argument to be made, and once this country as a whole used to follow. The 10th amendment was interpreted to mean the bill of rights didnt apply to the states, and the attempt to apply it to the states was part of the point of the 14th amendment in 1868.

The way rights are applied to the states is to link them through the due process clause of the 14th
amendment. As it relates to NOT establishing a state religion this was done in 1961 in the case
Torcaso v. Watkins. So they dont have much of an argument......

Problem of course is that, even if NC was sucessful in overturning that case and setting up a state religion, they would set a precedent to establish a Muslim state as well (which Republicans are terrified of) via the same law applied in another state, or even make it totally illegal to own a gun, via the same principal applied to a different amendment.

Again if it had continued on the path to become law, this bill would have been a brutal lesson in the laws of unintended consequences on top of the flat out insanity of trying to pass a law that intentionally uses langauge opposed to the Constitution.

The second crazy law the NC GOP is proposing this week goes a little something like this:
If your in college and you vote, your parents taxes will go up.

See as it stands if you move away to college and live there and try to vote, your legally allowed to do so. (Symm Vs US)

Well no more in NC. If your parents live in NC and you try to vote at your school address, NC will take away your parents tax deduction for you being a dependent, and make it impossible to for you to say your being claimed as a dependent which will raise your taxes as well.

Now this bill is being paired with a voter ID bill, which is part of the "trap". For example if you move to college, you probably want your mail delivered to YOU and not your parents house on the other side of the state. Well see if you change your address to get your mail, you cant vote because your address wont be the one you registered at, and when you show your ID at the poll, you'll be rejected.

Or you can change your address and see your taxes and your parents taxes go up. Or you can go home every week for your mail and bills and everything else.

It's just a good thing youth voter turnout in NC is 110% so we can and actually should discourage voting.....Oh wait thats right, its not actually that high. its just that young people tend to vote for one party, and SPOILER ALERT its not the party that controls the state at the moment.

Finally we get to our last crazy ass law of the week, or well crazy ass laws, because its another pair.

Both of these last two laws focus on education, by making sure the state is full of quality teachers and manageable class sizes. Err wait, actually its more the exact opposite of that.

See the first bill would eliminate the caps on classroom sizes. 50 kids in a class? well we gotta save money somewhere so why not lay off enough teachers and just increase the class size.

The second is not any better, as it would remove the requirement that teachers be licensed AND subject to background checks. Because we all know weeding out criminals and requiring competency in the subject your teaching arnt actually required for a good education. Plus it discriminates against high school dropout pedophiles who have every right to be allowed to be left alone with your kids.

The upside of course is that since none of these kids will ever graduate with teachers like that, it pretty much makes the second law (about college voting) irrelevant. So at least the GOP fixed that problem with their insane laws......