WTF Businessweek?

Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?

Attribution: Bloomberg Businessweek. Obviously.

I'm not outraged. I'm too confused to be outraged or offended. Just totally bewtfuddled.

But they're apologizing to anyone who has made it beyond the bewtfuddlement stage:

"Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which we regret," Josh Tyrangiel, the magazine's editor, wrote in a statement sent to POLITICO. "Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we'd do it differently."

I mean, uh, okay.

What could possibly go wrong, indeed.

Good News! The Liberal Media Just Discovered Transgender People

The Jackson Free Press is Mississippi's premier liberal news source, so it's a little odd to see this headline on their story about Leah, a transgender high school student in North Mississippi:

The story, which in fact turns out to be an Associated Press (AP) wire story that is used in newspapers nationwide begins by explaining that a "male high school student" will be finishing "his senior year dressing as a girl."

Problem is, that's not how being transgender works. Being transgender isn't an act of defiance of one's physical sex; it's an act of embracing one's true gender despite one's external physical sex. Leah is not simply dressing as a girl, Leah is a girl. Leah is affirming her true identity.

The article seems to imply that Leah is just making an arbitrary decision to dress differently. It seems like a rudimentary attempt to describe a newly discovered species.

When I realized the story was an AP wire story and not the sole work of the Jackson Free Press, I was willing to give the JFP a pass (after all, I don't think they have much control over the content of AP articles). But then, I looked at the Jackson Free Press's Twitter:

A male high school student in Mississippi is drawing attention after deciding to finish his senior year dressing... fb.me/v7WoKDnE
— JxnFreePress (@JxnFreePress) February 28, 2013

Come on, JFP. Even if the lede on the AP story sucked, you could've run it but come up with a more sensitive tweet, surely? Or better yet, just run your own reporting. I'm sure you could've done a better job on your own, right?

This post isn't meant to bash the Jackson Free Press. They often do a great job of covering progressive causes in Mississippi and bringing attention to injustices and issues here that no one else is willing to write about. But even liberals sometimes make dumb mistakes when it comes to transgender people. Just correct the error and consider it a learning experience. We could all spend a little more time understanding people who are different; progressives are no exception.

State's First Openly Gay Mayoral Candidate Found Dead in Mississippi

President Obama poses for a photo with Marco McMillian (to Obama's right) in this undated photo.

Marco McMillian, the man whose campaign spokesman, Jarod Keith, describes as "the first openly gay man to be a viable candidate for public office" in the state of Mississippi, was found dead near the Mississippi River Wednesday morning. The 34-year-old Democrat was running for the Mayor of Clarksdale, a legendary Blues town in the Delta.

The story gets stranger:

Marco McMillian.

"Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith said McMillian's body was found Wednesday morning near the levee between Sherard and Rena Lara. It was sent to Jackson for an autopsy.

Meredith said the case is being investigated as a homicide, but he declined to speculate on the cause of death. 

Authorities had been looking for McMillian since Tuesday morning when a man crashed the candidate's SUV into another vehicle on U.S. Highway 49. McMillian was not in the car. 

The suspect is recovering at the Regional Medical Center at Memphis from injuries sustained in Tuesday's crash, WREG-TV reports."

According to the Daily Mail, a person of interest has been taken into custody.

Godspeed to Clarksdale and to the family and friends of Marco McMillian.

Update: A spokesperson for McMillian's campaign told Mississippi activist Zach Magee that preliminary evidence is not showing signs of a hate crime. There's a little confusion here because, while federal law recognizes anti-LGBT hate crimes, Mississippi hate crimes law addresses "actual and perceived gender" but not sexual orientation. (Thanks @rnwilson on Twitter) So all this really tells us is that his death probably wasn't related to his skin color.

Thanks to Nathan in the comments below for posting the text of the state's law:

§ 99-19-301. Penalties subject to enhancement.

The penalty for any felony or misdemeanor shall be subject to enhancement as provided in Sections 99-19-301 through 99-19-307 if the felony or misdemeanor was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, national origin or gender of the victim.  

Sources: Laws, 1994, ch. 572, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 1994.

Let's Be Honest: Justice Antonin Scalia is a Racist Asshole; Voting Rights Aren't "Racial Entitlements"

If there's one thing that yesterday's proceedings did tell us, it's something that was already obvious to me the first time I had the "pleasure" of meeting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he spoke at the University of Southern Mississippi: Scalia is a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole.

Scalia is, after all, the same guy who said that neither gays nor women are protected from discrimination by the Constitution.

Scalia is preparing to strike down a major section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because, well, racism is over, right? Section 5, which Scalia seems prepared to strike, is the section that ensures that states with uncommonly malicious violations of civil rights – states like Mississippi – cannot arbitrarily change or revise voting laws without federal approval. That's why Mississippi's Voter ID law, which was designed to suppress minority voting, didn't go into law before last years election.

But onto Scalia's jackassery.

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Scalia argued in Shelby County. v. Holder.

Ah, racial entitlements, eh? "Entitlement" is a beloved term among conservatives that is often used to refer to what they see among blacks as a sense that they are entitled to be treated fairly and equally under the law. How dare those black "people" believe that they are entitled to be treated with equal human dignity! 

Keep blowing the dogwhistle, Justice Scalia.

"Even the name of it is is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who's going to vote against that?" Scalia asked. He said that the act created "black districts by law."

Sadly, Scalia was totally bamboozled by the wonderful name of the Patriot Act when the issue arose in 2003:

Scalia said the more irresponsible and violent a society becomes, the more citizens' freedoms will be restricted. He said that U.S.citizens tend to interpret the Constitution as giving them more power than the document provides.

Justice Scalia, who has never been shy about spouting homophobic and sexist bile in the name of jurisprudence certainly didn't mind to continue to do so today. His "racial entitlements" language in regard to the Voting Rights Act proves all by itself that we aren't beyond race; one of our most influential Supreme Court Justices clearly isn't. If anyone here exhibits a sense of "racial entitlement," it is Justice Antonin Scalia, who exudes what one might call "white entitlement."

His comments were so obviously dripping with racist sentiment that he may as well go back to the "Welfare Queen" arguments of the man who appointed him, President Ronald Reagan.

If Antonin Scalia really thought racism was over, he wouldn't be perpetuating racial stereotypes even as he argues that racism is over. But the mess that was 2012 voting in minority communities proves that problems still exist; it is no accident that black and Hispanic voters had to wait, on average, twice as long to vote in 2012.

Here's another sticking point, brought out by Chief Justice John Roberts:

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, asking him whether it was the position of the U.S. government that residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states.

Dear Justice John Roberts: You obviously have never lived in Mississippi. But let me give you a very simple response: Hell yes, Southern states are more racist than Northern states. I do live in Mississippi and, yes, I'll say it again: Southern states are more racist than Northern states – at least as a matter of public policy. Overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and you will see an onslaught of laws designed to conspicuously bolster rural conservative white voters while holding back black voting in the state – even without the overt-Jim Crow tactics. It will indeed happen. Racism isn't just about screaming words like "nigger" and running around in sheets and burning crosses. It runs far, far deeper. And yes, it still exists. Just look at your fellow justice, Justice Antonin Scalia, for clear evidence of it.

Angry Parents Mobilize Against Transgender Student in MS With "Prayers for South Panola School District"

Leah, a transgender student at South Panola High School.

Hundreds of angry parents and citizens have joined a Facebook "prayer" page after a high school student in North Mississippi came out as transgender. As of this writing, the "Prayers for South Panola School District" Facebook page had over 380 likes.

With the support of the Mississippi ACLU, a student who is only being identified as "Leah" took the first steps Monday toward beginning her transition by dressing according to her gender,  Mississippi ACLU Director Bear Atwood told WBTV News.

Teachers and staff were supportive, and fellow classmates even showed support for Leah by wearing green and pink.

"He's like any other student at South Panola, he minds his business, he's not hurting anyone," classmate Jabrea Joiner said. "He's only wanting to be himself."

Joiner added, "I know there was a lot going on, people had a lot to say in the classroom, but I just feel like it's not my position to judge anyone."

Unfortunately, many parents and adults from the area felt it was indeed their position to judge. Many are planning to protest and complain at the upcoming school board meeting. The "Prayers for South Panola School District" page was launched Tuesday morning. Its description was as follows:

"This page is set up to form a Christian based group to pray for our school's administration, board members, principles, teachers and students. It's time to STEP UP and put CHRIST back in our schools where he belongs!"

Apparently, part of "putting Christ back in our schools" includes ascribing to Jesus the role of "Bully in Chief." Why else would a bunch of adults create and use a page to, in the name of Christian values, target a single high school student for harassment and blame that student for the downfall of moral, godly society?

Ryan Moss posted and explained:

"This page isnt for bashing a single student. its for the people who have strong belief in the Lord and what he does for us that created this page. the incident that happened yesterday was just an example of not only the governments power but the power of satan."

When asked what the "incident" was (since Ryan claimed the page wasn't for bashing a single student), Ryan responded that the incident was about "The cross dressing student who has not yet become a transgender person being in schools with other parents kids."

Judy Jones Smith, in a separate post on the page, explained, "I am not heartless, but just because he 'feels' like a girl, doesn't make him a girl. I believe God still sees him as a young man and God loves him, and I do too, but I do not have to like his lifestyle..."

To Judy and others who think like Judy, I say this: Just because you "feel" like you're being "loving" and just because you feel like you're being "Christian" doesn't make you loving nor does it make you Christian. Not when your actions so obviously portray otherwise.

You can show your support for Leah by joining the much more loving, much more Christian page, Mississippians Support Leah.

Update: "Mississippians Support Leah" now has over 700 likes (and will surely have more by the time you're reading this), while the hate page, "Prayers for Panola School District," has 430. While the faux-prayer page is overloaded with hateful comments in the name of religion, "Mississippians Support Leah" is overflowing with love, kindness, and support for Leah from all around the world. Some of the comments are truly tear jerking. 

This is the second time in two weeks that anti-LGBT efforts in Mississippi have been met by a far greater outpouring of love and kindness from all across the state, the country, and world. Together, we do big things. Love conquers hate. ♥

John McCain Convinces Tea Partiers to Reject Idea that America is a Christian Nation During Immigration Exchange

In 2010, Sen. John McCain attempted to walk back his previous support for pro-immigrant reform with his "complete the danged fence" ad in order to ensure against a Tea Party primary coup, but he's since returned to his mavericky-self, once again embracing immigration reform and a path to citizenship. 

But at a town hall last night, Tea Partiers couldn't understand why we can't just deport illegal immigrants who have been here for 40 years. I suppose McCain assumed that, since the Tea Party is all about America's Judeo-Christian heritage, this would work:

"Why can't you do that? Because we're a Judeo-Christian principled nation, that's why you can't do that," he explained. "No, no, no!" Tea Partiers shouted back.

John McCain also had to explain that, no, guns aren't the solution to everything, when one man suggested, "Why didn't the army go down [to the border] and stop them, because the only thing that stops them, I'm afraid to say and it's too damn bad, but is a gun."

Yeah, it's too damn bad. But good on Sen. McCain for standing up for what's right.

Paul Abrams: Sequester Cuts Should Hit Tea Party Districts Hardest

Over at The Huffington Post, Paul Abrams is suggesting a novel concept that, in theory, should make everyone happy. If the Tea Party and the House Republicans continue to hold a gun to America's collective head and refuses to work with President Obama to stop the sequester cuts from happening, then focus those cuts to government overwhelmingly in Tea Party centric districts where voters supposedly don't like government, anyway:

[T]here are some cuts that could be overweighted in Tea Party-controlled districts, freeing that money up to be spent in other districts to keep the program whole. For example, more TSA personnel could be furloughed in Texas (Dallas, Houston), Arizona (Phoenix), Alabama, and fewer or none in Chicago, Seattle, Boston, New York, so that residents of the former states would face longer security lines and waiting times. 

Because the Tea Party types consider government spending to be evil, corrupting, dependency-producing and tyrannical, they should greet their disproportionate reduction with dancing and flowers. It will constitute the first real success of the "freedom agenda."The money saved by an agency in one congressional district could be shifted in the same agency to prevent cuts in other districts. 

Everyone should be happy -- the congressional districts represented by those such as Louie Gohmert, Paul Broun, Michele Bachmann and upwards of 80 others will be, as we say in Texas, happier than a two peckered dog that the government is not so much in their lives, while the other districts will be pleased to use that unspent money to moderate or negate the impact of those cuts. We ought also to include the districts of Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy.

Of course, the people in the Tea Party would never be happy with this compromise because, when it comes down to it, they like government just as much as anyone else when it benefits them. From a speech Obama gave in 2009:

"I have to say, the reason [a public option] has been controversial is a lot of people have heard this phrase 'socialized medicine' and they say, 'We don't want government-run health care; we don't want a Canadian-style plan,'" Obama said. "Nobody is talking about that. 

We're saying, let's give you a choice. You can choose the private marketplace, or this other approach. 

"And I got a letter the other day from a woman; she said, 'I don't want government-run health care, I don't want socialized medicine, and don't touch my Medicare.' And I wanted to say, well, I mean, that's what Medicare is, is it's a government-run health care plan that people are very happy with. But I think that we've been so accustomed to hearing those phrases that sometimes we can't sort out the myth from the reality."

The only problem they have with government is that it's currently run by someone that they've decided they will hate and fear monger over no matter what he does. Despite the fact that President George W. Bush destroyed a Clinton surplus and spent trillions on wars, tax cuts, and a healthcare plan (prescription drug benefits), these people didn't have the epiphany that they didn't like government or government spending until early 2009, immediately after Barack Obama was inaugurated.

So the idea that they would actually accept this idea is, of course, absurd. Which is fine with me, because, despite the bad and ignorant voting habits present in my state, I don't really want Mississippians to experience the impact of the policies they keep voting into office.

By the way, if you're wondering what the sequester cuts will mean for you and your life, check out this article.

'Where Some See Sin, I See a Family'

Seen on Facebook:

The Media Has a Collective Freakout Because Obama Doesn't Hand Them Stories on a Silver Platter

Some in the mainstream media have had it with the Obama administration's lack of transparency. They've had it with this administration not being open enough to the media and to journalists. They've had it with the White House's use of social media to shape the conversation. No, it's not because they're pissed that we don't get the full story on drone strikes. No, it's not because they're pissed that the White House isn't responsive on questions of NDAA and indefinite detention.

It's because they're pissed that they weren't notified that President Obama went out golfing with Tiger Woods and, as a result, couldn't be there to report on it.

In the midst of all of this, Politico has discovered the art of PR:

But something is different with this White House. Obama’s aides are better at using technology and exploiting the president’s “brand.” They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forums, not just for campaigns, but governing.

They've also discovered that–gasp!–this White House has pioneered the use of social media to advance its goals:

“They use every technique anyone has ever thought of, and some no one ever had,” New York Times White House reporter Peter Baker told us. 

Even worse, it turns out that the Obama administration doesn't do interviews for the sake of the media, but for their own interests:

“This administration loves to boast about how transparent they are, but they’re transparent about things they want to be transparent about,” said Mark Knoller, the veteran CBS News reporter. “He gives interviews not for our benefit, but to achieve his objective.” Knoller last talked to Obama in 2010 — and that was when Knoller was in then-press secretary Robert Gibbs’s office, and the president walked in.

Wait, what? You mean a politician is out to advance his own objectives and not to enhance the career of the reporters covering him? Horrifying. Can't believe it.

Perhaps if the mainstream media had already figured all of this out long ago, they wouldn't have wasted the last two days covering this colossal non-story. Yes, presidential administrations like to control the narrative. Yes, politicians are only going to give you the information they want you to have. That's why, centuries ago, journalists invented the practice of "investigative journalism," which, instead of assuming that embedded White House reporters are going to get all the details, actually digs beyond what our politicians give them. 

Instead, Politico is offended to find that "the president's staff often finds Washington reporters whiny, needy and too enamored with trivial matters or their own self-importance."

Trivial matters, like only getting outraged when they miss a golf outing with Obama and Tiger Woods? Whiny, like the sense of entitlement some have to get an exclusive story without ever going beyond the confines the White House press corps? 

For once, Charles Krauthammer has it right:

"If the guy wants to play golf, the guy deserves a couple of days off. He wants privacy – big deal. This is the biggest non-story that the media created since the Kardashian weddings. I don't understand what the story is and what the outrage is . . . I don't think Obama's out there with Tiger receiving marital advice. I think he's out there receiving advice on how to line up a putt."

And when Krauthammer is the voice of reason in the media, there's a problem. Figure it out, mainstream media. Chase the real stories. The fact that you are so starved for legitimate stories that you've made your inability to find legitimate stories the story does not speak well of you.

As Seen on Maddow Blog

First gay wedding in small Mississippi town makes frontpage, waves deepsouthprogressive.com/2013/02/hate-f… (tx to long-lost tipster)

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) February 19, 2013

CNN Ditching Beltway Term 'Sequester," Will Say 'Forced Budget Cuts' Instead

CNN is putting its foot down when it comes to the Washington Beltway's insistence on clouding the facts of their disastrous policies with complicated, elusive terms like "fiscal cliff" and "sequestration."

From now on, CNNMoney news articles and headlines will simply refer to the sequester (which is a self-imposed, artificial crisis set to make deep cuts into various government programs and services–including the military–unless the Republican Congress acts) as "forced budget cuts." Because, well, that's what they are. Per reporter Annalyn Kurtz's article at CNNMoney:

We've had enough of the Beltway's wacky terms. If you haven't noticed -- and how could you not? -- our lawmakers in D.C. have had a rather annoying obsession lately with using fancy-pants words to dramatize and complicate otherwise simple concepts. 

Thankfully, the fiscal cliff headlines have come to an end. The next culprit, though, is "sequestration," and we're putting our foot down. 

We're going to steer clear of the term in our articles and headlines. Why do we need such an esoteric word when we could just say  "forced budget cuts" instead? 

Here's what you need to know: As my colleague Jeanne Sahadi writes, in the end, sequestration is just jargon for automatic, across-the-board cuts in funding. If Congress doesn't act, the budgets of most federal government programs and agencies will shrink, starting March 1.

I think this move makes sense both journalistically and practically. After all, we in the political community are always complaining about the lack of engagement among the general population. What we often miss is the fact that certain of our politicians design it to be that way. And since they'd rather Jane Doe and John Doe not realize that what they're actually doing is cutting away their lifeline, well, they'll just mask it with nerd jargon that Jane and John need a dictionary to understand and hope they don't notice.

But CNNMoney says, "enough." Thank you, CNN.

Jackson Free Press Article: "Created Equal"

Here's a great article from Eddie Outlaw that was published this month in the Jackson Free Press. He discusses the pain of being gay in a place like Mississippi, the hope embodied by the youth, and the meaningfulness of hearing the President of the United States declare "our gay brothers and sisters" are all equal when President Obama said, "We, the people, declare today that the most of evident of truths–that all of us are created equal–is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forbearers through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall." Chilling, if you think about it.

From Eddie's article:

Eddie Outlaw

Watching the inauguration of President Barack H. Obama was bittersweet. I was proud to have advocated for my president, and I feel validated by his inclusion of the LGBT community and the diversity on display.

Looking back to last fall, though, my heart sinks at the thought of a relationship that has changed forever. I tried to influence one friend's vote, and in doing so, discovered that she has never condoned my "gay lifestyle." Rather, she had decided to love me and hate the sin. Not only had I unwittingly agreed to disagree for the past 20 years, but I had foolishly assumed she wanted equality for me and my partner of 10 years.

We haven't spoken since the end of October, and I've slowly worked through the five stages of grief.

On this past Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the fruits of the civil-rights struggle were on display for all to celebrate. Obama, sworn in on Abraham Lincoln's and King's Bibles, spoke eloquently about equality for all, mentioning "gay brothers and sisters" and Stonewall in his speech. And, as the nation listened with heads bowed, Rev. Luis Leon included gays in the benediction.

Read the rest of Eddie's article here.

Eddie has his own blog at EddieOutlaw.com.

Mississippi Officially Ratifies the 13th Amendment and Outlaws Slavery

The Clarion Ledger today notes that Mississippi has finally made history by correcting a 148-year "oversight." Slavery is finally officially illegal in Mississippi because our state has finally ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery. Pull out the champagne bottles and celebrate like its 1865, folks!

An associate professor at the University of Mississippi, Dr. Ranjan Batra, got the ball rolling after viewing the Steven Spielberg film Lincoln. Upon discovering that Mississippi had yet to officially ratify the amendment, Batra looked further into it. Batra discovered that Mississippi had in fact voted to ratify the amendment in a more timely fashion – only 130 years late in 1995 – but because of an "oversight" in which the state never officially notified the US Archivist, it wasn't official.

That glaring "oversight" has been corrected:

After seeing the film, Sullivan contacted the office of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, who agreed to file the paperwork and make it official. 

On Jan. 30, Hosemann sent the Office of the Federal Register a copy of the 1995 Senate resolution, adopted by both the Mississippi Senate and House. 

On Feb. 7, Charles A. Barth, director of the Federal Register, wrote back that he had received the resolution: “With this action, the State of Mississippi has ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 

Frazier remarked, “We’re very deliberate in our state. We finally got it right.”
Hosemann said he is glad to see the chapter closed, adding, “It was long overdue.” 

[...]

To be a part of something historic, to see the 13th Amendment finally ratified pleases Sullivan. “Now it’s officially filed and recorded,” he said. “There’s no asterisk by Mississippi any more.”

Such an oversight is, of course, understandable. Our lawmakers have been busy with so many other important things, like passing laws like the one to ensure citizens have the right to eat 20 Big Macs if they wish, or laws to ban Ninja Turtle-human hybrid pregnancies. You know, important stuff like that. But finally, they did get around to abolishing slavery, a century and a half after everyone else. 

Thank you, Mississippi state government. You're doing such a great job. Just think, 149 years ago, you'd have been ahead of the curve.

'Hate-Filled' Backlash After Laurel Paper Reports on Mississippi Gay Couple Who Married Despite Brain Cancer Struggle

The front page of the Feb. 7, 2013 edition of the
Laurel Leader-Call highlights the town's first
gay wedding. Click here to visit the site.

The staff of the Laurel Leader-Call were met with what a new op-ed called a "hate-filled" response in which at least 15 people cancelled their subscriptions after the century-old newspaper dared to report on an historic event: The first known gay wedding ceremony in Laurel, Mississippi.

On February 7th, the Leader-Call ran on its front page the moving story of Jessica Powell and Crystal Craven, a Laurel couple who married the Saturday before. One year ago, Crystal was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer. Since, she has had three surgeries, and neither she nor Jessica are certain what the future holds.

But in in October, Crystal got down on one knee and proposed to Jessica.

The wedding was much like any other wedding you've ever heard of. Jessica had a dress from David's Bridal. The wedding included a maid of honor and a best man. There was a cake-cutting and punch at the reception. There was a flower girl and there were ring bearers. But Jessica was given away by her son, 6-year-old Aden.

At the wedding, Crystal wore a vest, a tie, and a white cowboy hat. The cowboy hat was meant to conceal the scars from her surgeries; her last surgery took place just weeks before the wedding. In attendance were staff from the oncology clinic where Crystal goes for treatment.

"If chemo doesn't work, we don't know what happens after that," Crystal said in the article. Yet despite the uncertainty surrounding their future, Jessica not only stood beside her, but committed to marry her in front of family and friends.

The wedding isn't legal in Mississippi, of course, but it's certainly real for them.

That story should move anyone. Anyone who was moved by the movie A Walk to Remember – in which Landon Carter (played by Shane West) proposes to and marries Jamie Sullivan (played by Mandy Moore) after learning she has leukemia – should be just as moved by this story and fervently hope it has a much happier resolution. As Jessica Powell said in the article, "Love is love, it knows no gender." In other words, there exists no difference between the love Jamie and Landon shared and the love Jessica and Crystal share. Except, of course, Jessica and Crystal actually exist.

Jessica Powell (left) and her new wife Crystal Craven (right) of Laurel, Mississippi,
leave their wedding ceremony hand-in-hand. Photo by Cassidi Bush.

But it was obvious that not everyone in Laurel felt that way. After the publication of the Saturday paper, the Laurel Leader-Call was inundated with angry phone calls – over 50, according to owner Jim Cegieklski. The newspaper's Facebook page was also hit by a string of angry comments, some directed at Cassidi Bush who reported the story. She's been accused of promoting the "liberal agenda" because of her reporting. For the record, Cassidi identifies as a conservative.

One commenter wrote, "This is what we have to put up with on the world news every night. Never thought I would open my local paper and see such. Insulting!!!"

"It's a sad day for traditional family values when this is printed on the front of a newspaper," another wrote.

Betsy wrote, "I don't see 'hatred' in any of these comments. I personally believe that gay 'marriage' is wrong in the eyes of God." It's obvious: Betsy's opinion is pretty much the same as God's opinion, generally, and she is the barometer by which we should all measure how well our opinion aligns with the Big Guy's. Just so you know.

One commenter simply offered the couple prayer:

"When I said my vows to my wife in the presence of God Almighty, I made a promise to love and be faithful to her until death. I do not understand how a person can promise, in front of our Lord God, who created us, to live in sin against His will for the rest of their life. You can word it however you want to, but I pray for the soul of any man or woman who takes such a vow in the presence of God."

That Sunday, a local preacher told his congregation that, if he'd had a subscription to the Laurel Leader-Call, he would've cancelled it.

Clearly belying all of these comments is a sense of entitlement among the socially conservative part of the population. It's an entitled, small-minded worldview that doesn't believe in sharing a world with anyone who is different. They, after all, are entitled to continue to exist as they always have. Gay people aren't supposed to actually surface in society; they are supposed to remain marginalized, hidden from view, secluded in their "sin," pariahs to Southern society. They are only ever supposed to show up as fodder on a Mississippi Sunday when pastor gets an itchin' for some real fire and brimstone.

That's how it's always been in Mississippi, and for social conservative, God-fearing Christians, that's how it always should be. It is their Lord, their God. Laurel is theirs. The Leader-Call is their paper. It their culture. Marriage is theirs. And their reality shouldn't have to co-exist alongside that of gay people. And, for God's sake, think about the children! Their children. As Casey wrote,

"Really classy, LLC. If this is front page material then the news business is getting tough. Front page should be for promoting something worthy of attention, not something that I would hope my children wouldn't see or read for that matter. I'm not judging the couple by any means, that's God's job, but you don't have to glorify it on the front page!!!"

See, Casey wasn't judging the couple; but really, Casey is entitled to receive a newspaper that doesn't report things Casey doesn't like. Therefore, the marriage must not be historic or newsworthy, since Casey doesn't like it.

In an op-ed this past Saturday, owner Jim Cegieklski responded to the obvious logical fallacy:

"You don't have to like something for it to be historic. The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Black Sox scandal are all still historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of these events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse), I'm just saying that whether you liked the story or not, the first known gay wedding to take place in Jones County is still historic."

Cegieklski also notes that the sheer volume of response the story has received proves that it is indeed newsworthy. It has engendered a far greater response than stories on elections, serial rapists, or murders. Which are apparently much more savory topics where children are concerned, really, considering the fact that no one ever cancels their subscriptions or complains about those.

Thank you to the Laurel Leader-Call for not only showing journalistic integrity, but bravery and commitment to reporting the world as it is, not as many wish it still was. Cassidi Bush, Jim Cegieklski, editor Mark Thornton and the staff of the Leader-Call deserve major kudos. If you have a chance, head over to their Facebook  page and leave them a thank you.

I want to give my best wishes to the newly-weds, and extend my hopes and prayers for a full recovery to Crystal for long, happy lives together. Thanks for sharing your beautiful story with all of us. I'm sorry that there are people who are so blinded by their own prejudice that they cannot see the love, beauty, and compassion that your relationship embodies.

Correction: This post initially identified Jim Cegieklski as the editor of the Leader-Call. Mark Thornton is the editor of the Laurel Leader-Call, Jim Cegieklski is the owner.

Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Bank Regulators: "I'm Really Concerned That 'Too Big to Fail' Has Become 'Too Big for Trial'"

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has put the bank regulators on notice: Their lives are about to change. Today, she pressed them on their lack of concern with prosecuting Wall Street institutions guilty of crony capitalism:

"The question I really want to ask is about how tough you are. About how much leverage you really have in these settlements and, what I'd like to know is, tell me about the last few times you've taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to trial. Anybody?"

When the bank regulators stumbled all over themselves, unable to answer the question, Warren was frank:

"There are district attorneys and United States attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I'm really concerned that 'too big to fail' has become 'too big for trial."

The Huffington Post pointed out the irony of the situation:

The financial regulators can blame, at least in part, Wall Street lobbyists (along with outgoing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Senate Republicans) for their embarrassing turn at the hearing. Warren would have been on the panel herself representing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, instead of a sitting senator, if her nomination to head the agency hadn't been thwarted in 2011.

So glad to have you in the Senate, Senator Warren.

Fox News Mocks Desiline Victor, 102-Year-Old Woman Who Waited 3 Hours to Vote

Just when you thought Fox News couldn't sink any lower, well, let's just say they would've discovered the Titanic this morning if Robert J. Ballard hadn't found it first.

During his State of the Union Address, President Obama highlighted Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old woman who, because of Republican laws in Florida meant to discourage people from voting, was told that the wait to vote might take as long as six hours. But supported by a crowd throng of people who supported her, she proudly wore her "I Voted" sticker in half the time, after standing in line for three hours.

A 102-year-old woman, standing in line for three hours to vote? That's bordering on barbaric, and not something that any free or democratic society should ever allow, especially not in the "greatest country on earth." Yet that's exactly what this brave, determined, patriotic lady did.

This morning, Fox News hosts Brian Kilmeade, Martha MacCallum, and Bill Hemmer asked, "What's the big deal?" and went on to mock Desiline Victor:

“How long was she on line?” Hemmer wondered, casting doubt on the story. 

“What’s the big deal? She was happy,” MacCallum quipped. “She waited on line, she was happy that she voted.” 

“They held her up as a victim!” Hemmer agreed. “What was she the victim of? Rashes on the bottom of her feet?”

Listen to the audio of this hateful fool fest here.

Marriage Equality is Coming to Illionis, Everybody Panic!

It looks likely that marriage equality will be coming to Illinois sometime soon if the people of Illinois have anything to say about. Naturally, the Illionis Family Institute is in freakout mode. Have a look at what these drama queens are saying:

"The legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will have far-reaching, devastating and pernicious cultural consequences, including within our public schools. [...] 

For years, activists within and without our public schools have been exploiting public education to advance their unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. This will continue and intensify whether or not we change our marriage laws. But changing our marriage laws will inarguably make it more difficult to keep Leftist ideas about homosexuality in general and marriage and family in particular out of our schools. Our youngest, most impressionable children will be taught ... lies."

Oh my God, they're right. It'll be just like Massachusetts, where elementary school children are forced to participate in gay orgies with one another as part of their cultural sensitivity training!

And where they have the lowest divorce rate in the nation, but you know, BFD.

The Filibuster of Chuck Hagel and the Gentleman's Backstab of Harry Reid

In 2011, filibuster reform failed when Senate Majority Leader Harrry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached a "gentleman's agreement." As part of that agreement, Reid would make it easier for Republicans to file amendments while McConnell promised he would limit the GOP's use of the filibuster.

That worked out so well that, by May 2012, Reid was lamenting his decision not to institute filibuster reform. Democrats began working on the idea of filibuster reform, including the possibility of reinstitution of the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style talking filibuster that would require filibustering senators to actually take a stand.

But in 2013, filibuster reform failed again when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached a "gentleman's agreement." As part of the agreement, Reid would ensure that Republicans are still able to filibuster whatever the bloody hell they like, except Reid would delude himself into believing that Republicans wouldn't because gentleman's agreements actually mean something.

This morning, Senate Republicans are making history. For the first time in history, the confirmation of the president's nominee to the post of Secretary of Defense is being filibustered.

It's not completely shocking news. Embittered Queen of the Senate Lindsey Graham has vowed "no confirmation without information," demanding that, unless the president answers more questions about where he was and what he was doing on the day of the Benghazi attacks, he will not confirm the nomination of Chuck Hagel. Harry Reid correctly pointed out that Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with Benghazi, but then again, neither did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and that didn't stop Graham from joining hands with John McCain to destroy her career and end her prospects of being nominated to become the new Secretary of State.

Senate Democrats need 60 votes to stop the filibuster of Chuck Hagel. They currently have 58 and remain two short, according to sources.

Harry Reid is just shocked over the shenanigans over Hagel:

"It is tragic that they have decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate," said Reid. [...] "In less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense."

[...] Reid acknowledged that he is now facing criticism from progressives for having accepted the deal with McConnell. "A number of shows attacked me last night," he said. "[They said] we shouldn't have agreed to the rules changes because this is what we have going on." Reid said he was ignoring the criticism, but bringing it up demonstrated that he is actually well aware of it. 

Why is Harry Reid shocked? Yes, the filibuster of the Secretary of Defense post is unprecedented. But so was holding the nation's debt limit hostage and bringing down our credit rating. So was the "fiscal cliff" debacle. So is the sequester insanity. Yes, we live in a dangerous world where dangerous dictators seek nuclear weapons, where North Korea is currently testing their weapons launches, and where terrorists still roam the globe. But did Reid really think that would stop Republicans from extending their craziness to filibustering the nominee for Secretary of Defense?

Harry Reid should be embarassed that he has been played for a fool by the good 'ole boy "gentleman's agreement" he made with Mitch McConnell. The problem with a gentleman's agreement is that it presupposes that both men are, in fact, gentlemen. Unfortunately for Harry Reid, the other man turns out to be a backstabbing tortoise (okay, he just looks like a tortoise).

The Real Problem With Rubio's Speech: Parched for Intellectual Honesty, Big on "Small Government" Platitudes

Plenty has been written, tweeted, and pundit'd about Rubio's water bottle moment; I won't rehash that here. Because, while that was all that most of the mainstream media remembered from his speech, Rubio's terrified moment of water slurpage wasn't the most troubling thing about it. The problem was that the speech itself was absolutely parched for intellectual honesty.

In his speech, Rubio attempted to confer the idea that he is a direct descendant of the lineage of Reagan, a true son of the Republican gods. In that vain pursuit, he was reduced to uttering the sort of mindless ideological platitudes with the kind of speech that any kid taking the conservative side on a high school debate team might have given at any time in the past 30 years. It was an attempt at re-imaginigng an old idea that conservatives have proclaimed as the heart and soul of Reaganism: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." Rubio's words:

This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies. 

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried. 

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back. 

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It’s going to create uncertainty. 

Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can’t afford to follow. 

Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs. 

And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.

The problem is that, after 30 years of Republicans repeating that line, Americans fully rejected the philosophy in 2012, when Mitt Romney (initials also M.R.) was a little too honest about what "smaller government" entailed.

The other problem is that, when President Ronald Reagan first delivered that message, he was speaking to a vastly different nation. He was speaking to a much whiter nation, a nation full of white Southerners who were still reeling from the success of the Civil Rights movement, forced desegregation, and from the implementation of programs specifically meant to help minorities (like affirmative action). When Reagan said "smaller government," he was speaking directly to that white resentment, and "smaller government" and "lower taxes" was broadly understood to mean "less of your hard-earned money going to black people."

As Lee Atwater, a former Reagan White House staffer, explained in an interview on the "Southern Strategy":

Lee Atwater

"You start in 1954 by saying ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘Nigger.’ That hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff and you get so abstract. Now you talk about cutting taxes and these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that’s part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded, we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. Obviously sitting around saying we want to cut taxes and we want this, is a lot more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than nigger nigger. So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner."

While that strategy worked well in the 1980's and even into the 90's, today, those dog whistles don't resonate like they once did. At least, they don't resonate with as large of a segment of the population as they once did, and the segment that they do resonate with is dwindling every year. That's why attacks on "big government" will never again be as effective as the were in 1980, which came after decades of much "bigger" and more ambitious government than we have today, even under Obama.

And the truth is, Marco Rubio isn't invested in the same motives as those with whom the sentiment does resonate so strongly. He just repeats the platitudes and the "principles" because, well, that's what Republicans and conservatives are supposed to do, and, well, Saint Reagan said it, didn't he?

But Marco Rubio doesn't sound convinced by the actual ideas; he just seems convinced that he should be repeating them and embracing their principles for the sake of embracing them. Yet as he does it, he looks like a deer in the headlights, and does indeed sound like that high school kid repeating platitudes about small government conservatism for the debate team.

The only times that Rubio sounded engaging, self-assured, and even somewhat confident in what he was saying during the rebuttal was when he spoke of his family, his journey, and how he achieved the American dream. Compare this:

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back. 

To this:

I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn’t have gone to college without it. 

And this:

Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. 

And that's all in the same speech. Not entirely consistent, is it? So does Marco Rubio really believe that "more government isn't going to help you get ahead"? No, of course not. Why else would he be pursuing a career in government?

Rubio's story is, quite honestly, the quintessential American story. He's the son of immigrants who came to America to find a better life, who worked hard and, with help from government programs, made it in this country. They were able to see their son go to college and rise in the ranks of American politics, while Medicare ensured that they were taken care of in their old age.

Immigration. Hard work. Financial aid. Medicare. The American Dream. All liberal ideas. Government didn't help Marco Rubio and his family get ahead – at least, not small government. Smart government helped Marco Rubio and his family get ahead. Smart, liberal government.

Rubio doesn't believe in "small government." Rubio believes in the American Dream, a dream that was afforded to his family and bequeathed to him through the government by liberals policies and programs. He's lived it. It's just unfortunate that his chosen political party has spent the past three decades trying to turn that dream into a nightmare.

Possible New Pope Supports Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill

Cardinal Peter Turkson, who has been brandied about as a frontrunner to succeed Pope Benedict when he retires later this month, likely wouldn't at all be a more gay-friendly pope. Indeed, he has lent support to Uganda's "Kill the Gays Bill," which, as its name implies, would apply the death penalty to those convicted of being gay. From The Huffington Post:

Turkson claimed during a United Nations summit last February that such laws could be permissible in society because the "intensity of the reaction is probably commensurate with tradition," according to the National Catholic Register. “Just as there’s a sense of a call for rights, there’s also a call to respect culture, of all kinds of people,” he said when discussing the stigma surrounding homosexuality in Africa. “So, if it’s being stigmatized, in fairness, it’s probably right to find out why it is being stigmatized.” 

Turkson also criticized U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has called forAfrica to decriminalize homosexuality and end discrimination based on sexual orientation. "When you’re talking about what’s called ‘an alternative lifestyle,’ are those human rights?” said Turkson, according to NCR. “He [Ban Ki-moon] needs to recognize there’s a subtle distinction between morality and human rights, and that’s what needs to be clarified.

[...] He also said he believes the Catholic Church must "evangelize," or convert, those with "alternative lifestyles, trends or gender issues."

As much of a step forward as a non-European (that means black) pope would be, a pope who supports implementing the death penalty against gay people would be even more of a step backwards.

Mississippi House Passes Bill Affirming Right to "Eat 20 Big Macs," Guzzle "1,000 Sodas"

Proposed new welcome signs to be placed at incoming state border crossings.

In an unbelievable waste of taxpayer money and legislative time, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed Wednesday HB 1182, a bill meant to affirm the right of citizens of the fattest state in the nation to keep getting fatter.

"If you wanna go eat 20 Big Macs, you can go eat 20 Big Macs," said Democratic Rep. Gregory Holloway, the bill's handler. "If you want 1,000 sodas, you can still do that" (That's a 14,600 calorie meal, as The Clarion Ledger points out).

It's been dubbed the "Anti-Mayor Bloomberg Bill" by opponents. Sure enough, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jerry Turner, confesses that it is indeed the Anti-Mayor Bloomberg Bill. That's a reference to the anti-obesity New York City law that bans the sell of sodas larger than 16 ounces in restaurants and other vendors.

In a rousing speech that nearly caused some members of the Republican House to soil themselves in excitement, Turner defended the law on the basis of championing "personal liberty," drawing "hoots of approval" from fellow Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that they are representatives, not a load of fratasses.

What Turner doesn't mention, of course, is that the "personal liberty" bill that encourages Mississippians to get even fatter and even unhealthier comes at huge cost to the tax payers, who must shoulder the burden of a healthcare crisis in Mississippi that is caused, in large part, by our 35% obesity rate. That crisis also means that everyone else's healthcare premiums cost more, too. But don't tell the Mississippi Republicans that, who have spent years wondering why Medicaid costs the state so much. Don't tell Democrats like Holloway, either.

But there was one Democrat who spoke up against the bipartisan stupidity of the Anti-Mayor Bloomberg Bill. Democratic Rep. Steve Holland stood up to state the obvious, challenging Holland to a game of question and answer:

“We’ve got an obesity problem in the state of Mississippi, haven’t we?" Holland asked. "Of major proportions. Childhood obesity especially. Do you think that immoderate use of a Coca-Cola is good for a man?” 

“I don’t see where it would kill him,” Holloway replied. 

“Alright, what about the excessive use of a Coca-Cola? If you drink 10, 15 a day?” Holland said. 

“Probably would have some effect on your kidneys,” Holloway replied. 

“Dang sure would,” observed Holland.

Holland drew laughs, but Holloway and Turner won the day, as the bill passed 83-31. 

While our legislature could be passing initiatives and working to solve the obesity and health crisis in our state, they're doing the opposite: Encouraging obesity, promoting bad health, enabling the continuance of our healthcare crisis, endangering our children, and continuing to embarrass us by ensuring we remain the national laughingstock. 

And they do it in the name of preserving personal liberty. Of course, when you're a Mississippi Republican, "personal liberty" only extends as far as you can reach your arm out at the drive-thru of McDonald's. Morbidly obese and want to eat 20 big macs? Well, of course, it's your right to do whatever you like with your body! Gay and want to marry the person you love? Hell no, you can't just do anything you want. We have moral standards, for goodness' sake! 

As for that vagina of yours? Definitely not your personal property. That belongs to the state.

It remains to be seen whether or not HB 1182 will pass the senate.

Woman Claims Hattiesburg Tornado Was Manmade Conspiracy

I'm not sure what sort of conspiracy theory this woman is peddling, but a woman on YouTube has uploaded a video claiming that she was in Hattiesburg (she pronounced it "Hades-burg"), Mississippi when she saw a "long cloud" forming. Her first thought? "They could make that a tornado." I assume "they" means the government. In the video, she asks viewers when we're going to stop allowing the manmade creation of these tornados.



I'm just as confused as you are.

Edit: And you're probably even more confused; the video was removed by the user.

Twenty-Two Senate Republicans Vote 'No' on Violence Against Women Act

Before President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address Tuesday, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, sending it to the House. The reauthorization of this act, which aids in the fight against domestic violence and sexual violence, should've been a no-brainer. Unfortunately, "no-brainer" was the word of the day for the 22 Republican men who voted against it, a count which included both Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who gave the Republican rebuttal to last night's speech, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who gave the Tea Party rebuttal-to-the-rebuttal.

Here are the Republicans who voted against reauthorizing the act:

Senators who voted against the bill included Republicans John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

So what was the problem? One problem for Republicans may have been the fact that the new act extends protections to LGBT victims of domestic violence. As all Republicans should know, gay people who are in gay relationships probably deserve any negative consequence that might come along with a particular relationship.

For his part, Marco Rubio released a statement saying he voted against reauthorization because of new provisions against sexual assault and because he questioned the extension of new protections for Native American women.

Marco Rubio: "Minimum Wage Laws Have Never Worked"

Perhaps seeking to upstage his own awkward "watergate" moment last night, Florida Senator Marco Rubio came out swinging, not only against President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, but against the entire concept of minimum wage itself, telling CBS, "I don't think a minimum wage law works."

He could've just stopped speaking at, "I don't think."

When adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is the lowest it's been since 1951. And while minimum wage laws were originally intended to curb employer abuses and provide a livable wage, few would argue that a meager $15,000 a year is enough today to afford a year's worth of rent or housing, car notes (and car insurance), grocery costs (bottled water, hello), healthcare costs, gas, electricity and heating bills, water bills, much less other requirements of the modern labor force like mobile phones and Internet access.

The truth is, $9 isn't unreasonable at all, and neither was the $9.50 Obama first promised when he was running in 2008 (promise not kept). It certainly isn't unreasonable to suggest raising minimum wage to $9 and tethering it to the consumer price index (CPI). Even Mitt Romney liked the second idea.

If the minimum wage had kept pace with rises in inflation over the past 40 years, it wouldn't be $7.25 today. It wouldn't even be $9 or $9.50. Minimum wage would be $10.58 an hour.

But even that may be too low historically. A report last year indicated that "had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour."

Still, we could get even more radical. Instead of tethering the minimum wage to the CPI, we could tether it to rises in CEO pay. Back in 2005, a report showed that, had minimum wage compensation risen as fast CEO pay since 1990, it would've been $23.03 in 2005, when minimum wage was still just $5.15. That report came out over 7 years ago, so we can safely assume it would be even higher today, because income inequality has only grown since then.

Yet, according to Marco Rubio, "Minimum wage laws have never worked in terms of helping the middle class attain more prosperity."

Obviously, in a world where big money is king and economic inequality is greater than it has been since the pre-depression Gilded Age, we can't possibly expect our politicians, Democrat or Republican, to have the guts to even think about treating us as if we deserve the same rise in pay as corporate executives. For now, $9 an hour would be a definite step forward if it is chained to inflation. Chaining it to inflation would render arguments that minimum wage increases boost inflation both circular and moot, and would ensure that, at the very least, economic inequality doesn't continue to grow exponentially.

No one is asking for class warfare (the graph above suggests the 1% has been waging and winning that war for a long time). No one is trying to destroy business or bring down capitalism. We are only asking for the fulfillment of the promise of the American dream that we've heard about all our lives: If you dream big and work hard, you will succeed, and you will be able to provide for yourself and your family.

Is the so-called American dream real, or is it just snake oil?

Today, that dream is not a reality. And while we understand that Mr. Rubio and his fellow Republicans are highly concerned that their corporate buddies might lose their obscene advantage over the peasant class should the minimum wage be transformed into a living wage, most of us are more concerned with ensuring that everyone has a fair shot, and not just with ensuring the perpetuity of 1% exclusivity.

State of the Union a "Childish Spectacle," Says Antonin Scalia

In a chat with National Public Radio last night, ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained why, for the sixteenth year in a row, he wouldn't be joining his colleagues to attend the president's State of the Union Address.

"It has turned into a childish spectacle," Scalia said. "I don't want to be there to lend dignity to it."

Coming from the justice who routinely bullies gay people from his perch at the highest court in the land, who compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty, who has stated that the Constitution does not protect women from discrimination (along with gays), and who has proven himself an "intellectual hypocrite" time and time again, well... Bless him.

I don't think the State of the Union need worry that the presence of Antonin Scalia might lend dignity to it. After all, Scalia has spent much of his career doing his best to make a childish spectacle out of, not only the Supreme Court, but the Constitution itself.