Umm, you might want to stop that

Earthquake in northern Ohio caused by fracking wastewater

Enough said.

Tennessee doesn't like illegals

I had previously heard about Tennessee's new voter ID law, requiring anyone voting to present a photo ID before voting. While these laws are meant to suppress voting among those who typically vote Democrat, I'm not shocked by it. Kentucky has a similar law, and it doesn't seem overly egregious, and probably won't have much of a chilling effect on turnout long term, although it could cause troubles in the short term (it's not going to matter in the presidential elections there, but could affect congressional races). Chances are it mostly will be used to harass funny-colored people, which is the Official Pastime of Tennessee, although I'm betting many of the poor, white Republican voters will have troubles with it, as well.

I hadn't heard about Tennessee's effort to purge non-citizen voters from the rolls, however. When I first read the synopsis, I thought it was going to be up to poll workers to racially profile potential illegal aliens voting. But upon further reading, I see that they are going to compare the list of those with a "temporary license" (given to those with green cards) or a "certificate to drive*" to the list of registered voters and attempt to kick out anyone who isn't a citizen. There are more than 20,000 people holding one of those licenses (only 1,043 with the certificate to drive).

* created under Democratic governor Phil Bredesen in an attempt to get some of the illegal aliens to at least have better driving skills, and since discontinued by the now Republican-dominated government

I'm sure there are some non-citizens registered to vote, and I'm sure they'll find some among those 20,000. But to make it seem like this is some big accomplishment is disingenuous at best; Colorado did a similar thing and found that 106 non-citizens had registered to vote since 2006. Does that shock anyone?

Fair elections are important, and folks who aren't entitled to vote shouldn't be allowed to vote. But it's an imperfect system, and the main thrust of this law is just more warfare on the right's favorite boogeyman, illegal immigrants.

Here's betting the NRA will try to make a martyr out of this

Tourist tried to check in gun at WTC site

The NRA types will love this example: licensed permit-holder from another state is at the 9/11 memorial and tries to do the "right" thing and check her gun -- never mind that carrying it in New York City is illegal.

They can use this as any example of why they want licensed carry permits to reciprocate in all 50 states.

I'll be shocked if NRA lawyers don't offer to help her.

....and she was from Tennessee, of course.

Update: A story in the Tennessean contains a pertinent bit that was not in the above-linked story:

...and when officers searched her they found two envelopes of what they suspected to be cocaine. She has not been arrested on any drug charges.

Not sure why they wouldn't charge her on the drug possession -- I'd imagine NYC officers know what cocaine looks like -- but with this tidbit, this story suddenly fits the narrative of the gun-control advocates slightly more than the NRA folks. A lot of folks want to carry concealed weapons for protection (which is dubious logic, but I digress), but a lot of folks carry concealed weapons because they're up to other more sinister deeds -- like buying/selling drugs.

Zany Newt and American exceptionalism

Does Newt Gingrich understand the Constitution? He loves to prattle on about it, then he comes out with awesome bits like this, wanting "radical" judges to be brought before Congress -- by U.S. Marshals, if necessary -- to answer for their decisions. I'm pretty sure that goes against one of the most basic rules of our government, that whole separation of powers thing. 

Because, after all, the definition of "radical" is "disagrees with me."

Newt is typical of many a conservative:

 “Do you want to move towards American exceptionalism, reassert the Constitution, reassert the nature of America, or do you, in fact, want to become a secular, European, sort of beaurocratic socialist society?”

I'm all for American exceptionalism -- I do believe we are a great nation. But to these folks, "American exceptionalism" means simply that we somehow shouldn't have to do things the way other normal, 21st century progressive first-world countries do.

So to answer his question, I'll, um, take a version that's closer to the second option.

Not a good experience

A quote from this story about a house fire not too far from where I live -- in which a person died -- rang eerily close to home for me.

A neighbor who tried to crawl into the house was greeted by smoke so thick he couldn't make it. His quote:

"It was eerie," she said. "There was no noise in the house at all. Just silence."

It's interesting to see that explanation of it, because once upon a time when I lived in Tennessee, our neighbor's house (doublewide, actually) caught on fire (the second time their house had burnt; just a year or so earlier, their single-wide trailer burnt, as well) in the middle of the night. Their dogs were still inside, so the owner insisted on crawling in after the one in the front bedroom, near the front door. I suggested he not go, but ended up crawling in behind him and keeping him in sight while he dragged out one of the dogs (the other apparently never moved and died in the fire).

The explanation of the silence struck me (gave me a chill, actually), because that's what I experienced. It was like entering some kind of warp zone. It was the middle of the night, and we were pretty much in the middle of nowhere, but it was a different silence, suffocating. And even though it was pitch black, the color in the house seemed brown, somehow. 

It's not like I went far into the house; I was only a matter of a few feet inside. But that was more than enough for an experience I won't forget. It makes me realize why people can so easily die in a house fire; it is very disorienting, and I can only imagine how quickly panic would set in.

This will win you the GOP nomination

Politician Admired For Sticking By Incorrect Statement | The Onion

The Repugnicans' new Medicare plan

New Medicare Law Would Require Never Mentioning Program To Anyone Born After January 1, 2012 | The Onion

Romney: Obama’s A Wimp For Not Destroying That Drone | TPM2012

Romney: Obama’s A Wimp For Not Destroying That Drone | TPM2012

If Pakistan was mad about an air strike in their country that killed 24 soldiers, wonder how Iran would have felt about a similar strike inside its borders?

Obama quote

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al-Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement… or whoever’s left out there.”

Why is anyone paying attention to this?

I have been noticing the headlines in the Lexington Herald-Leader -- and even some in national media -- about some church in BFE, Ky., that voted against accepting interracial couples.

I had not read any of the stories, because the headline told me all I needed to know -- and I could never understand why this story was getting so much attention. Churches all over the rural south would vote this way, should it come up for a vote.

Ah, but thankfully, it's been resolved in a politically correct manner:

Pike church reverses course, votes to welcome people of all races


...yes, they will now "welcome" people of all races. Uh-huh.

Two things I learned after finally reading the story that had gone on too long: 1.) it was a free will baptist church, which is one of the more hellfire-and-brimstone of the bunch (I know from experience); and 2.) the original vote was 9-6, while the new vote to welcome all races was 16-0.

All this attention for 15-16 backwards honkies in Podunk?

Weak? How about crazy?

As I keep reading about Republicans being unhappy with their choices for the GOP nomination, it strikes me funny, especially when they call their choices weak.

The truth of the matter is that their candidates are weak because their politics are extreme. Right now, those in the field are either crazy (Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, etc.) or having to lie about some non-crazy positions they've taken in the past (Romney). In order to win the nomination (and this has long been the case for either party) you've got to cater to the base. Right now, the Republican base has shifted farther right, and they've got no one but themselves to blame, with all the fear-mongering they've done over the past few years.

When it comes to electability, Democrats have figured out you need someone who can feel your pain and stare eloquently off into space; Republicans need some aw-shucks guy who just seems too friendly to be crazy. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama fit the bill, as do Reagan and Dubya. Jimmy Carter and Bush the First don't, so they were one-termers. And all of the losing nominees since the 1970s didn't fit the bill either, so they were no-termers.