Tennessee Politicians Save Their Constituents From A Muslim Conspiracy Of Cleanliness

March 26th, 2013 | Posted by Peregrin Wood in Homeland Insecurity | Religion - (0 Comments)

The Tennesseean reports today that a coalition of Republican state legislators in Nashville, led by Representative Judd Matheny and Senator Bill Ketron, has been trying to clean the Tennessee state legislature of any sign of Muslim identity. Matheny and Ketron were outraged, when a new cleaning device appeared in the Tennessee state capitol.

They feared that the device, which appeared low to the floor in a corner of a bathroom, with a drain and a small hose included, had been put in place to help Muslims wash their feet before prayer. Matheny and Ketron were deeply concerned at the idea that people might be walking around the Tennessee state capitol building with clean feet. The whole idea sounded dangerously… Islamic

So, the Republican legislators went to the Tennessee State Senate Clerk with their concerns, and after some investigation, the clerk reported back the terrible truth: The new device in the state capitol bathroom was for cleaning mops.

What’s next? Will followers of Osama Bin Laden demand that we start washing our hands before eating dinner? It’s Sharia, I tell you! Sharia!

Thank you, Tennessee Republicans, for keeping your priorities straight, protecting us from the Muslim menace of clean floors.

, , , ,

Donations for Clean Water Overseas, Fresh Protest in Memphis

August 13th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Activism | Outside the USA | Politics - (1 Comments)

Every time someone buys one of our fresh sweatshop-free political shirts, we set aside one dollar for desperate people overseas and one dollar for political causes here at home. Our overseas donation this time around goes to Charity:Water, which digs wells to supply clean water for people who have none. Our previous donations to Charity:Water have helped drill wells in Rwanda and Uganda, and we’re happy in our small-scale way to help those sorts of projects continue.

Our domestic political donation goes to Occupy Memphis, which is having problems in recent days with the eviction of its encampment last week and difficult discussions about its future direction. Whatever difficulties Occupy Memphis may be having at the moment, the group at least is trying to move our politics in the right direction. Where are liberal Tennesseans supposed to go — to the stolid Democratic Party, which nominated a Tennessee Senate candidate who is neolithically anti-gay and theocratic? I don’t think so. No way. Institutions like the Tennessee Democratic Party could use a flame underneath their asses to get them moving. Social movements like Memphis Occupy are small and nimble enough to play that part.

, , , , , , , , ,

Another TN Senate Alternative to Corker and Clayton: Vote for Green Party’s Martin Pleasant

August 13th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Democrats | Election 2012 | Politics | Republicans | State and Local - (2 Comments)

When the Republican Party runs a big oil, big brother candidate and the Democratic Party runs an outright bigot in the Senate race in Tennessee, what’s a liberal to do? One solution that we’ve discussed here at Irregular Times is to write in independent Jim Maynard in November. There’s another good alternative, and that’s to vote for Martin Pleasant, the Green Party candidate for Senate. As Richard Winger points out, if Martin Pleasant can get 5% of the vote, the Green Party would be automatically ballot-qualified in 2014 and 2016, leading to more liberal choices on the ballot. As the Democrats show with their nomination of a conservative disaster in this race, the voters of Tennessee could use some more choices.

, , , , , , ,

With Corker and Clayton out of the Question, Write in Jim Maynard for Senate in TN

August 9th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Bumper Stickers | Buttons | Democrats | Election 2012 | Politics | Republicans | Shirts | State and Local - (3 Comments)

If your politics are anywhere to the left of Pat Robertson, the two major parties offer no viable option in the Tennessee Senate race.

Consider the Republican incumbent, Bob Corker. Corker may have good hair, but he’s got a nasty policy record. In 2011 Corker blocked a move to end special tax breaks for big oil corporations at a time when big oil reaps huge profit. Months after the BP oil disaster, Senator Corker cosponsored a bill to automatically approve oil drilling applications without review. Bob Corker voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act without reform and without debate. Net Neutrality? Bob Corker’s against it. Indefinite detention of Americans without charge? Bob Corker’s for it. Repeatedly for it. Bob Corker is an authoritarian oil whore.

Then there’s Mark Clayton. Clayton is the Democratic Party nominee competing to take Bob Corker’s seat. Clayton is Vice President of a group called Public Advocate of the United States that opposes equal rights for gay and lesbian people and wants to require Americans to practice compulsory Christianity.

What’s a reasonable person to do? Refuse to be limited to these unacceptable alternatives. Look for other alternatives. One place to cast your vote in protest is with Jim Maynard, a write-in candidate for Senate. A veteran progressive activist in Memphis, Maynard mounted a surprisingly strong write-in campaign challenging conservative Democratic incumbent Harold Ford Jr in 2004. After Clayton’s outrageous nomination this year, Jim Maynard has put his name forward as a write-in candidate, a receptacle for all the people who refuse to roll over and play patsy for the conservative agenda. Maynard offers a pretty succinct reason for people to write him in: you want to oppose anti-gay theocratic bigots? Write in me: I’m a humanist gay man! You can read about Maynard’s principled prior write-in bid here, you can follow Maynard’s platform and candidacy right here, and you can find bumper stickers, buttons and shirts to promote the Maynard for Senate write-in campaign over here.

Tennesseans, some people would rather you didn’t know it, but you do have a choice in the Senate. One good choice is to write in Jim Maynard for Senate.

Update, August 10: Jim Maynard has rolled out an official Maynard for Senate web page.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Poverty Higher In States That Ban Atheists From Public Office

May 30th, 2012 | Posted by Peregrin Wood in Liberty | Religion | State and Local - (4 Comments)

There are seven states in the USA with constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

There are two testable justifications for these discriminatory provisions:

1. Atheists should be banned from public office because atheists cannot be effective leaders and will lead to problems for the states in which they hold public office
2. A divine being controls the universe, and that divine being gets angry when atheists hold public office, so that divine being punishes states where atheists are allowed to hold public office

A specific test that should confirm or refute these justifications is an examination of the poverty rate in the states where atheists are allowed to hold public office, and compare that to the poverty rate in the states where atheists are banned from holding public office. If either or both of the above justifications are valid, then the poverty rate in states that ban atheists from holding public office should be lower.

I looked at the data from the Census Bureau. Specifically, I used the bureau’s average of the last three years of data, which is calculated in order establish a more steady sense of relative poverty in each state, compensating for swings in the data from year to year. I averaged the poverty rates in the two sets of states, and here’s what I found:

discrimination against atheists increases poverty

These results show that there is indeed a relationship between constitutional provisions that ban atheists from public office and the poverty rate, but it’s exactly the opposite relationship that the justifications for the discrimination would predict. States that prohibit atheists from holding public office have a higher average rate of poverty (15.4%) than states that allow atheists to hold public office (13.1%).

There are three reasonable explanations for this pattern that I can think of (Supernatural explanations aren’t reasonable, so I’m not going to speculate that there is a divine being who hates discrimination against atheists and metes out punishment accordingly):

1. Allowing atheists into public office encourages people of greater ability to run for office, thus increasing the effectiveness of government in a state
2. Allowing atheists into public office is part of a state culture of open-mindedness that tends to attract people of greater ability, who are able to keep themselves out of poverty
3. States that have high rates of poverty tend to make poor decisions, because their most talented residents tend to leave in desperation, and prohibitions on atheists in public office are just one symptom of a more general statewide ineptitude

Whichever explanation is true, or even if there’s some other dynamic at play, this much is clear: Banning atheists from holding public office doesn’t make the residents of a state, and it just might hurt them.

, , , , , , , , ,

Senator Bob Corker Served His Lunch By Lobbyists

March 27th, 2012 | Posted by Peregrin Wood in Ethics | Politics | Republicans - (4 Comments)

Tomorrow, what are you going to do for lunch? If you have any plans at all, I wager they’re not as grand as the lunch plans of Senator Bob Corker.

wincing senator from tennesseeSenator Corker is going to have his lunch served to him by lobbyists.

At 11:45 AM, Corker is scheduled to arrive at the offices of Hogan Lovells LLP, a registered lobbying firm that represents clients that include:

- The American Frozen Food Institute
- The American Gaming Association (gaming means casinos, not Dungeons and Dragons)
- The American Hospital Association
- Andarko Petroleum
- Anschutz Corporation
- Barclays Bank
- Berkshire Hathaway
- Credit Suisse Group
- DTE Energy
- Edison International
- The Gas Technology Group
- General Electric
- Intrepid Mining
- Keystone Inc.
- Mortgage Insurance Companies of America
- The National Chicken Council
- Nextgen Equipage Fund
- Occidental Petroleum
- Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America
- Vulcan Materials
- Webster Bank
- Xcel Energy

Hogan Lovells lobbyists Robert Glennon and Jeff Munk are listed as among the “hosts” of the lunch. Hosts at this party are not those people who plan the color of the table cloths. The hosts are those people who make especially large payments to Senator Bob Corker.

The purpose of the lunch isn’t really the food, you see. The purpose is to give lobbyists some “alone time” with Senator Bob Corker, during which they provide him with two things: 1) Advice on which legislation to support; and 2) money.

Other lobbyists who are hosting the cash bar at Hogan Lovells are Kate Fulton, a lobbyist who works exclusively for BlackRock Capital Management; and Jade West, a lobbyist employed by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. Who knows who else might show up at this very special meal?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

134th Way to Exasperate a Liberal: Pull a Religious Bigotry Twofer

July 17th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Election 2012 | Liberty | Politics | Religion | Republicans | State and Local - (2 Comments)

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, explaining why a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee must not be built:

It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion. And I don’t agree with what’s happening, because this isn’t an innocent mosque…. It is another example of why I believe in American laws and American courts. This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.

Fact check: there is only one web page mentioning either “Shariah” or “Sharia” on the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, and it concerns the rules for Muslims who visiting graves. That’s it. There’s absolutely nothing about making Muslim laws American laws, which wouldn’t happen until we had a Muslim population majority, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon. If that’s an attempt to “gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws,” it must be very gradual attempt. I suppose it’s just “sneaky,” which is another way of saying “completely unobservable.”

But no, Herman Cain has in mind that if a mosque is permitted to be built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, then people might go to it, and if people go to it, then they might become Muslims, and then they might build more mosques, which might attract more converts to Islam, which might eventually lead to a majority of American Muslims, of a particular sort, mind you, the sort of Muslim that insists upon the imposition of Muslim Shariah law into the codes of government law, which would, finally, 80 years from now, be “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.” Which is why Herman Cain insists that a mosque should not be allowed to be built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Not allowing a mosque to be built in Tennessee is an infringement of freedom of religion today. See United States Constitution, Amendment One.

Herman Cain isn’t the only one who’s been stirring up religious bigotry around the issue of the Murfreesboro mosque this week. Take the remarks of Susan Lynn, former Republican state legislator. The Christian Post reports:

Its website describes the center’s mission as a place to “improve the practice, knowledge, and understanding of Islam among all people” as well as “elevate the image of Islam and Muslims among non-Muslims in general.”

Susan Lynn, a former Tennessee General Assembly member, says residents are especially worried by the second mission statement.

“I think the overall concern is that it will be such a large mosque. Murfreesboro is a college town and it seems as though this extension may be directed at influencing the college students,” said Lynn.

State Senator Bill Ketron says that the center is supposed to expand to well over 50,000 square feet.

“Where are the people going to come from to fill it up?” questioned Ketron. “That leads one to believe that they’re going to [be reaching into the community] to increase their membership.”

A religious group hoping that others in the community will join up: why, that never happens in America! Or does it? Susan Lynn, in the next breath:

Lynn, a Christian, meanwhile, said there are many “wonderful churches” in Murfreesboro and encouraged concerned Christians to become more involved in their outreach to college students.

, , , , , , , ,

Diane Black Confirms Republicans Will Attack Social Security

December 27th, 2010 | Posted by Peregrin Wood in Economy | Republicans - (11 Comments)

New U.S. Representative Diane Black has just been appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee. That’s a committee that has substantial authority over government spending, and Representative Black has made it quite clear what she intends to do with her part of that authority: She’s set to launch a full attack against Social Security. She says:

diane black attacks social security“I would privatize Social Security.”

Here’s what privatizing Social Security means: 1. Progressively larger segments of the population send money from their paychecks to Wall Street investment firms. Right wing ideology holds that private marketeers should be able to outperform government-run systems such as current Social Security funds, but a series of disastrous Wall Street collapses, ranging from Enron to Bear Stearns, shows that’s not the case.

2. Funds to support the public Social Security system dry up. Diane Black can say that she won’t redirect the money currently earned by seniors to Wall Street, but that’s irrelevant, given that most seniors don’t contribute much money to Social Security. The money seniors use right now comes from this generation’s young workers, and it’s precisely that contribution that Black proposes to take away, putting Americans in their 60s, 70s and 80s at risk.

If Social Security funds were redirected to Wall Street firms, a small number of financial elites would make a huge amount of money from the scheme. Everyone else would ride a terrifying economic roller coaster, and Social Security would no longer be an effective safety net. Just when working people needed Social Security most, Social Security would go into default.

Diane Black’s proposal would essentially give Wall Street the power to tax American workers, forcing us to send our money to elitist investment firms that have extremely poor records of ethical behavior.

Diane Black seeks to break the promise of Social Security in order to promote a radical redistribution of wealth from working Americans into the accounts of Wall Street fat cats. We’ve been warned that this attack against Social Security would happen. Now, what are we going to do about it? Find a compromise common ground, to let some of the Social Security benefits we’ve paid for go, as Barack Obama and the Blue Dogs would have it, or stand up and say HELL NO?

, , , , , , , , ,