Monday, February 17, 2014
Crist: Life of the (New) Party
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Yes I'm Angry! A Complete Abortion Rant For Florida and Beyond
2011. The tea party took full control of Florida and other states as well. Anti-abortion laws skyrocketed to an all-time high. Florida passed so many that Rick Scott actually threw an abortion assault party at the governor's mansion:
- They passed the strictest parental notification law in the US.
- They took license plate funds going to adoption services and diverted them to anti-abortion groups.
- They prohibited insurance from covering abortion.
- Last year, they even tried to remove Florida's privacy protection in our Constitution with an amendment vaguely disguised as something else.
- Under Scott, Florida women must now undergo a medically unnecessary and expensive ultrasound. (Charlie Crist vetoed this bill in 2010 when it also required women to listen to the description on the ultrasound. I don't know exactly how they were planning to force them, but that's what the bill said.)
I was angry, but in July 2012, I hit a boiling point.
A federal judge finally allowed a Tampa Bay woman to seek damages for a horrible wrong. This poor woman was victimized three times. First, she was brutally raped. Second, when she tried to get help, she was instead thrown in jail for an outstanding warrant (for a "failure to appear" charge when she was a juvenile). As bad as it was for the rapist to be walking free while the victim was thrown behind bars.... it got much worse. A "rape kit" procedure was performed and the Tampa Rape Crisis Center doctor prescribed two emergency contraception pills: one to take immediately and one 12 hours later. Yet when she asked the person running the jail for the second pill 12 hours later, she was denied because of the jailer's "religious beliefs".
Florida has a broad refusal clause that allows people other than just pharmacists to deny prescription medication. Now call me cynical, but I believe the most personal decision a woman can make, the decision to have a baby, should at least include the woman. Since she will be the one to raise it, take care of it, and financially support it, I just think she should have some say in this. I don't think a monumentous decision to have a baby should be made only by a violent criminal and an ideologically-driven jailer. (I don't say "religious" jailer because the terrible things that go on at that jail, like throwing a quadriplegic out of his wheelchair, isn't religious in any sense of the definition.)
Ideologically-driven crusaders not only defended the jailer's actions but regarded the jailer as some sort of hero. Its easy to blow these people off, but in our state they "serve" in the legislature. The only thing worse than an ideologically-driven crusader is one with legislative power...
Because it is here that our leaders see nothing wrong with people denying prescription drugs they don’t like, or promoting the rights of a soon to be discarded Petri-dish over a sick child, injecting themselves into a family fight over a legally dead woman, or making inappropriate pro-life license plates with proceeds going to deadly “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” that are actually state-funded anti-abortion propaganda centers that pretend to be professional health facilities.
Strangely enough, these folks lament the right of abortion while simultaneously promoting it. They oppose comprehensive sex education courses in favor of sexual ignorance, and make ridiculous cuts to our most vulnerable citizens that make it almost impossible to raise children in favor of tax breaks and giveaways for those who need it least. (This hypocrisy makes. me. ill.)
All of this is illogical if your goal is to curb abortions, but logic rarely enters into the abortion debate. It’s about feelings. The feelings of anger or even hate that I have for the fat, well-dressed man screaming at the frightened teenager in front of an abortion clinic are the exact same feelings the abortion protestors feel towards the poor teenager. (With the added glee of taunting “You Got to Play, Now You Got to Pay!”)
Forced birthers will fight for a fetus and insist it be given more rights than the mother. However, once the fetus becomes a baby, when NO ONE questions or debates that it is a life, they don't seem to care if it gets kicked to the curb. Food stamps, programs for the disabled, health care? They fight AGAINST these things while trying to force a woman to bear child. The same ones protesting abortion wouldn't consider lifting a finger to help improve the horrendous state of our orphanages, mentor a needy child, or, God-forbid, consider adoption as an option—especially if he or she is a minority. But they'll protest up a storm on the weekend. (One protester explained that God “called” him to protest, but probably others are “called” to do “that other kind of stuff”.)
I HATE self-righteous indignation. I hate even more people without morality, empathy, or common sense. If you are cursed with any or all of those values, then you understand my suffering.
Yes, I am angry. I can't write about abortion without getting angry. You so-called "pro-lifers" reading this probably feel the same way. I'm sure you are calling me names and spewing venom as you finish this sentence. I get it... but now that I've ranted, let me propose putting past our mutual contempt for just a moment and lets agree on SOMETHING:
By making it easier (and cheaper) to adopt, by making day-care more affordable, and by making it easier for those who need it to get the help they need to support their baby—abortion rates would DROP dramatically.
I can PROMISE you that this way would curb a lot more abortions than making it illegal ever could.
The abortion debate has devolved into arguments over legalization. What I would argue is that abortions will not stop if made illegal: the wealthy will be able to afford to go wherever it is legal, and the poor will return to the back-alley procedures. The fight over legalization is a losing strategy anyway: the reality is that newer abortion drugs will make most procedures requiring a clinic moot. Then what will you do? Its a heckuva lot easier to target clinics than try to stop a pill.
Besides, think this through. Suppose Roe is overturned and your favorite Southern state makes abortion illegal. Now suppose a woman decides to go to a clinic and drives to a state where abortion is legal or even to Canada or Mexico. Who exactly would be charged? The doctor? (Not likely, its legal where he or she is and your Alabama laws won't apply) The driver/parents? (Really?) The impregnator? (No, never the male) The woman? (This is usually the consistent answer from the protestors... although the suggested punishment I hear varies from jail to some sort of "counseling").
Let me ask you straight up: ARE you serious about curbing abortions or just in promoting a misguided ideology that only results in increased abortions? If you are really serious about curbing abortion, try giving the woman the support she needs so she will want to have a baby and be able to take care of said baby. Again, changing minds and offering support is not only the Christian thing to do, but in the end, is the only real viable thing to do.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Et tu, Jobs Governor?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Minority-Heavy Polling Places Eliminated in Florida County
On a party-line vote, a Florida county’s Republican majority Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday to eliminate almost one-third of Manatee County’s voting sites.This was a proposal from right-wing elections supervisor Mike Bennett, who dismissed the unanimous opposition in the public meeting to eliminate dozens of polling sites in minority areas. Keep in mind that this is the guy who supported the Voter Suppression Act of 2011 by admitting he wanted to make it harder for people to vote:
I wouldn’t have any problem making it harder. I would want them to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people of the state of Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who’s willing to walk 200 miles…This should not be easy.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Another Florida Hispanic Politician Switches to Democrat
Today, he's joined by former State Representative and Republican activist Ana Rivas Logan--who ripped up her Republican voter registration card at a press conference.
She has had it with the Florida's GOP:
"It's a party that has been radicalized and held hostage by a group of extremists. It's a party that attacks women and minorities -- and one that asked me, and my former Hispanic Republican colleagues in the Florida legislature, to turn on their own people by supporting extreme anti-immigrant policies. It's a party I was no longer proud to be a part of."
What she's talking about is Rick Scott's obsession with bringing the Arizona-style anti-brown people law here to Florida. Because of her ethnicity, Mz. Rivas had continuously been pressured to support it--most recently by the new lieutenant governor.
The original bill, that Scott really wanted and promised to sign if it made it to his desk, was even worse that Arizona's. It explicitly exempted white people. (It was written that Canadians and Western Europeans were "presumed" to be here legally.)
To ask her to support such an atrocity must have been a punch to the gut. What is even more insulting is Rick Scott's backpedaling in an election year to seem less hateful. Recently, a FL GOP House aide was trotted out to say Rick Scott was actually very pro-Hispanic, but he's just "not flashy, he's quiet about it".
He's so superstealth about it, in fact, that it almost appears to the layperson that he is actually anti-Hispanic. If Rick Scott is really so pro-Hispanic, he has a funny way of showing it:
- Vetoed a bill that passed overwhelmingly in both houses that would allow children of undocumented immigrants to obtain a temporary dr. license
- Tried to illegally purge thousands of Hispanic voters from the rolls
- Signed 2011 voter suppression law that vigorously targeted Hispanic voters; Hispanics stood in line the longest, were more likely to have to use a provisional ballot and almost twice as likely to have those ballots rejected
- Still trying to bring AZ anti-brown law to Florida
- Spent tax money to fight Latino resident citizens from claiming in-state tuition
Scott's pollster, Tony Fabrizo, determined that Scott can't win without some minority outreach. So Scott is in full pander mode. He recently said he would "consider" at some point letting DREAMers pay in-state tuition. His Lt. Gov. followed up by saying he couldn't even remember how he voted on it. (One guess as to how he did.)
So that should help.
Rep. Rivas is simply realizing what most Hispanics already know. Out of the two major parties in America, there is one party that is constantly apologizing for bigoted slurs, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and tolerance of think tanks that promote that Hispanics are permanently intellectually inferior--and another party that isn't.
For those two options, the choice is pretty clear. Welcome, Ana.
Friday, February 07, 2014
Rick Scott Just Blocked Early Voting for University Students
Breaking: Rick Scott is a freaking ass.
The city of Gainesville dealt with huge lines last year (as did most Democratically-leaning cities, with 6-hour waits). The city asked to use the University of Florida student union for early voting.
Rick Scott's corrupt Sec. of State, Ken Detzner, said NO.
Lori Edwards, Polk County Supervisor of Elections called it what it was: "Strategic. They're worried about young people voting."
Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters, called it "jaw dropping to consider that we wouldn't open up the student union, the student library and other buildings on campus to make it easier for our leaders of tomorrow to start their civic duty of voting."
Are you ticked off? Take some action:
- Progress Florida organized a phone campaign to complain and is gathering responses: Hook it up.
- Let Rick know on his facebook page that all the voter suppression and scheming isn't going to make one iota of difference.
- And, best of all, make this backfire on the bastard. Join Crist's campaign.
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Today: Judge Who Let Off "Affluenza" Teen Murderer Rules Out Any Jail Time At All
Boyd, who had no trouble sentencing a less affluent black kid to a 10-year prison term for less, had the final opportunity to do the right thing this week.
She already ruled out any punishment for the guilty pleas of intoxicated manslaughter last year, but at the time did not sentence the teen regarding the intoxication assault charges for the people who didn't die but were severely injured (one is paralyzed and the other suffers severe injuries).
Prosecutors this week asked again for jail time.
Again, Judge Boyd said absolutely not. She closed the hearing and declined to add a separate verdict for the two disabled victims.
Maybe she thinks the kid will learn about responsibility when he goes horseback riding, does yoga and has chef-prepared meals at the Newport Academy in Newport, California.
Something for you to think about today as you muddle through your day as part of the "other" America.
Join the thousands who signed the petition to get Judge Jean Boyd OFF THE BENCH!
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Rick Scott's Voter Purge Sequel More Nefarious
Ken Detzner took over as Sec. of State when the previous one, Kurt Browning, refused to go along with Rick Scott's incredible assault on voting rights and his voter purge that even Rick Scott admitted was flawed. Recall that Detzner put together a list in 2012 of about 180,000 "potential" noncitizens that conservatives touted to rile up their base. The problem was that it was complete bull*%&. A quick examination showed that the most of the names didn't belong on there. The most fundamental scrutiny of the list had it whittled down to 2600 names. It was then sent to election supervisors, and they found it riddled with errors. Democrats noted it disproportionately targeted Hispanics. It was whittled further down to 207. Then 198. Finally - 85. Keep in mind that this is out of almost 19.5 million people.
And how many prosecutable cases of voter fraud? One. Just one. And he wasn't even a Democrat. (I am gleeful that after all the money was spent they snared only one "gun enthusiast" who probably voted for Scott.)
So what does Rick Scott do for his election this year after such an epic fail? Apparently, weighs his options and decides all the bad publicity is worth trying to purge hundreds of thousands of voters again.
The ensuing bad publicity? Nothing a bus tour can't fix. Detzner conducted the "Project Integrity Tour" across Florida to "inform" the public about the new and improved voter purge.
THIS time things will be different.
THIS time, they will be much worse.
Now they are using the Department of Homeland Security System Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to cross check our voter rolls. If you are not on this list, its enough for the Scott team to kick you off.
Here's the problem from the DOH's own website:
the inability of the SAVE Program to verify [a person's] citizenship does not necessarily mean that [the person is] not a citizen of the United States and ineligible to vote
So we have the Department of Homeland Security’s Memorandum of Agreement with Florida specifically stating it shouldn't be used to crosscheck citizens. Furthermore, this database is a fee-based system, which would make it far more expensive than the 2012 purge.
So why the hell are we using this database?
Rick Scott is making this database the end all, be all.... you had better be on it. This means that a lot of people who get kicked off, (people who have the surname 'Hernandez' for example), will have to spend a lot of time and money restoring what never should have been taken. A naturalized citizen will need to show their naturalization certificate-and God help them if they lost it. A replacement copy will take months and cost $345.
No answers as to why Rick Scott and Ken Detzner think it isn't enough to just fill out the affidavit of citizenship on the voting registration. That is a much simpler and cheaper way to prosecute and puts the onus on the state, not the citizen.
There are also no answers as to why thy are pushing an issue that doesn't exist. No research has been provided to anyone on this magical tour why the issue of in-person voter fraud is worth spending so much on--especially considering not one of the 67 Supervisors of Elections has asked for it.
People stood in line up to 9 hours in South Florida to cast ballots because they were angry their rights were being trampled on. You would think slick rick would have learned by now.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Bayer CEO Actually Said This: Cancer Drug Is For Rich Westerners, NOT Poor Indians
But its a pretty big deal...
Nexavar is a kidney and liver cancer-fighting drug that was developed by Bayer and approved for use over 9 years ago. Despite it being almost a decade, the price has not come down much for the drug. A one-year drug treatment costs $69,000 at minimum.
You read that right. To get a one year supply of pills it will cost you 69K US dollars.
India has a law that says they will allow other companies to manufacture a generic version of any life-saving drug IF that drug is massively overpriced.
In 2012, an Indian patent court ruled that, yeah, $69,000 dollars is quite a freaking lot to ask a dying person to pay for a damn drug treatment. (At least if your last name isn't "Koch".) As The Young Turks pointed out, 69K is 41 times the country's annual per capita income.
So India allowed a generic version to be made by another company at a cost of $177 a year-- a trite more reasonable. That's 99.7% less than the 69K.
Bayer's CEO, Marijn Dekkers, was outraged by the ruling. In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek a few days ago he didn't even try to hide his contempt:
"We did not develop this medicine for Indians... we developed it for Western patients who can afford it!"
He said that.
Wow. He was able to not only piss on dying poor people but be racist while doing it.
Dekkers went on to say that the ruling was "essentially theft". (Said the man who charges 69k for a drug that can be made 99 times cheaper.)
I get the argument that drug companies have a reasonable expectation of profit. Yes, I also get that research and development can be expensive and they want to recoup some of that. But come on... you've charged $69,000 per person for life-saving treatment for almost a decade. I think you've recouped your expenses. There is no justification for charging that much to someone.
I remember the outrage I felt when affluenza was used as a murder defense last year, but I'm starting to think its a real affliction for people so ungodly rich they lose touch with humanity. No rational, healthy person would say they developed a life-saving drug for only rich people. Or compare complaints about obscene income inequality with being attacked by Nazis. Or play dress-up as a wage employee to mock working families.
At least this guy is being honest. But you'll understand that the next time I get a headache, I'll be passing over the Bayer aspirin.
UPDATE: Gooserock asked if government funds were used to foot the bill of development. I don't know the specifics of this drug, but I can tell you that it is often the case. The federal government spent $484 million to develop the cancer drug Taxol. Bristol-Myers reaped massive profits by selling 9 billion dollars worth. The National Institute of Health only received a 35 million royalty.
A Rick and a Hard Place
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Issues to Waste Your Vote for Rick Scott On
Scratch that: A couple of hours after I first made this post, I checked the archive at Rick Scott Sucks, and dug out two more good ones. So it's now at 160, and newer ones start at 146. Have a look.




