Let's Get High; The Feds Say It's OK

By Cheri, The Non-PC News Girl

Over the past decade, there has been a strong push by several of the more progressive states to legalize marijuana. You may call it pot, weed, blunts, grass, Mary Jane, bud, ganja, dope, cannabis, skunk, chronic, green, hash or herb. California, Washington and Colorado have all passed state laws allowing for medicinal use of this all-natural substance since it's known to help stop nausea and with forms of pain. The only real holdback has been federal law, prohibiting and criminalizing the possession of it.

Currently, after the Justice Department said it won't challenge the state laws that not only legalize pot for medicinal purposes, but like with Colorado and Washington State, for recreational use. Instead, the feds will focus its enforcement on serious trafficking cases and child possession. 

Furthermore, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the governors of Colorado and Washington that his department, for now, will not overturn state laws that has legalized recreational use of pot. (Whoopee! Fireworks!)

This is all good to me! Most people who get high on pot become calm and chill out. They don't get aggressive like those who drink too much. And the same laws that apply to drinking and driving; prescription pills and driving; and sleeping and driving will also apply to pot. I also believe it will ultimately prove to have more benefits beyond what is already known for the more it's used in the pubic and is studied.

And this is a start to what I believe should come next in our society with regard to illegal activity--quartered-off zones for drugs and prostitution. After all, by the feds turning a blind-eye, it begs the question of what will come next? What will be the next substance that people will fight to legalize next? Cocaine? Heroine? LSD? There could be arguments made for their uses as well, such as for pain, medicinally, and mind-expansion, recreationally.

Finally, this is also a great sign that the government is backing off, even if just a little. I never thought I'd see it, and I'm sure glad it's happening.  

Write true, write ethical and write fair.

The $17 million's dollar word: Paula Deen's Fall from Grace

By Cheri, The Non-PC News Girl

America’s darling chef, the queen of southern cooking, Paula Deen, admitted to uttering the one word that any white person dare not say in the 21^st Century--nigger. And with that, she lost her cooking show on The Food Network; she lost millions of dollars in licensing, merchandising and endorsement deals from the likes of Target, Walmart and Home Deport; she lost her sponsorship with the diabetes drug company Novo Nordisk; and everywhere her products and shows are being phased out along with her good name.

Crying live on-air that she indeed made a mistake when she called a member of her staff a nigger during a heated argument, Deen called on that one person who has never made a mistake to pick up a stone and throw it so hard at her head that it kills her. She made repeated apologies and denied that she is a racist, claiming it was a solitary mistake and not a common occurrence that led a former employee to start a civil lawsuit against her for alleged racism. Yet despite this, and a website created to save Paula Deen that has thousands of signers and even the backing of members in the African-American community who all agree that she made a mistake but should not have to lose everything because of it, she has gone from the 4^th highest paid celebrity chef with $17-million in endorsement earnings in 2012 to a wing and a prayer.

At the same time Paula Deen’s disgrace is shot along the ticker-tape of every major news channel and is in the headlines of every major paper, George Zimmerman is on trial for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin. In this trial where racism is its backbone, Zimmerman is accused of targeting Martin for being a young, black hoodlum with a hoodie, stalking him along a dark, quiet street, confronting him and ultimately shooting him to death. While the trial is underway, on stand was Martin’s girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, who had been talking to Martin as he was being pursued by Zimmerman. According to Jeantel, Martin told her that a creepy-ass cracker was following him. When confronted by the defense attorney as to whether or not Trayvon was being racist by using the word cracker, Jeantel said no. She said cracker is not a racist word and using the word cracker to describe a white person is not a racist comment.

Hmm? On one hand, a white woman is being grilled, looked upon as a pariah and is losing millions of dollars for using the n-word. On the other, a black woman matter-of-factly uses the word cracker to describe a white person and she is not looked upon with shock or disgust. Hell, she doesn’t even consider it to be a racist slur and no one really cares if it is or not.

Both the word nigger and the word cracker are derogatory words used to describe a race, black and white respectively, by members of the opposite race as a way to hurt the other. And yet one woman has had to hire a crisis-management team to try and help her get redemption for using one of those words, and with the other, well, no one really cares.

As I was not the only person to see this quandary playing out in the news, CNN did a short segment where they sent a black reporter out into the streets holding three cards that read honky, cracker and nigger. To everyone that saw these cards, all agreed the latter was the most offensive, black and whites alike. There really is no word for whites that has the same connotation that the n-word has for blacks.

However, perpetuating the use of the n-word these days are blacks themselves, mainly young black males--such as Trayvon Martin who I’d be willing to bet has used the word hundreds of times. They use the word for the power it gives them, knowing only they and no one else can use it. As it was explained to me by one such young, black male, "We can use the word, but you can’t, and it's not fair we know--ha ha." They use it with no consequence, but are sure to give plenty of consequence to any other race that dares to do the same.

Now we see that if a white person uses this word and admits she did, the consequences are severe. Paula Deen has literally lost about 2/3rds of her business virtually overnight with one word. She’s perhaps the only person I’ve ever heard of who has lost so much for saying so little. From now on, you can bet no one is going to admit they have said the n-word or anything else that has the potential of costing them so much!

Sadly, if this is supposed to bring the races closer together by pointing out how bad it is to use such a word, it’s not working. And that's because it goes beyond political correctness and ventures into good-old reverse racism. Certain slurs said by certain people can cost them millions--that’s millions of dollars, MILLIONS--while those same slurs said by others are just rolled off their sleeve and are forgotten about.

Had “+”Paula Deen been a black woman and said the n-word, there would be no problem made of it. Had she been a black woman and said cracker to an employee, there’d perhaps be a small snicker, but not much more. But be white, and a southerner at that, and say it, well, that’s just unacceptable and by $17 million reasons worth.

Ironically, Paula Deen’s civil trial is still ongoing and she hasn’t been found guilty by the courts. But she has been found guilty by the corporations who are trying very hard to distance themselves from her and that word that costs millions to say. 

Write true, write ethical and write fair!

 

The Meaning of Rape in Billings Montanna

By Cheri, The Non-PC News Girl

+District Judge G. Todd Baugh of Billings, Montana, handed down a 31-day jail sentence to a child rapist, citing that the victim “seemed older than her chronological age“ and that she was "in as much control" as the rapist. She was 14! Yes, it is the year 2013, and, yes, Montana is in the United States.

+Cherice Morales was a 14-year-old high-school freshman when her then 49-year-old teacher, +Stacey D. Rambold, initiated a month-long sexual relationship with her. That she was a child means it was not with her, but against her, a fact that Judge Baugh doesn’t seem to get.

After the abuse was discovered by her mother, charges were filed and the case went to court. For two years, the girl went through the litany of court proceedings--depositions, pretrial hearings, etc.--spoke with the DA’s office regularly and ducked from public inquiry, and all-the-while went to school where everyone knew exactly what was happening. Eventually it became too much for her and she committed suicide at the age of 16.

When the case finally went to court, the prosecution wanted a 20-year sentence for Rambold. The judge, however, offered him a deal claiming he was redeemable because “it was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape like you see in the movies.” Judge Baugh said confess to one rape, complete a sexual-offender treatment program and stay away from children and you will only get 31 days in jail. Rambold agreed to this plea, but could not even adhere to the requirements. He was terminated from sex-offender treatment for having unsupervised family visits with children and sexual intercourse with a girlfriend.

The judge had originally sentenced Rambold to 15 years in prison on three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, but then suspended that sentence and gave him 31 days in jail minus a one-day credit for time served. All Rambold really wound up getting was 30 consecutive days in jail for rape against a minor!

According to +The Billings Gazette, the original plea agreement deferred Rambold’s prosecution for three years and dismissed all charges against him as long as he completed a sexual offender treatment program. But when Rambold was removed from the program, the case was again brought before Judge Baugh who said, “My thought was, given the relatively minor violations in the sex-offender treatment program, it didn’t seem appropriate to put him in jail, put him in prison” for a longer time. “It didn’t seem to me that the violations were such that the state should be able to back out of their agreement."

After complaints about this case and the statements made by the judge, who has been on the bench since 1984, Baugh apologized and said he misspoke. He explained that because it was not a violent rape, Rambold did not deserve a  harsh sentence.

Does Judge Baugh really believe that if a man doesn’t use force then it is not rape to have sex with a child? He should know that Montana law stipulates that a child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sex. But since he doesn't, I suggest that both he and the teacher spend a few years behind bars where the inmates there know the answer to this question and would waste no time explaining it. And perhaps after awhile of that happening to them, no force will be required.

Update (8/29/2013 8:00 p.m.):

After the judge's outrageous comments and the world looking down upon him and calling for his resignation, the state has been looking further into the case. Low and behold, a memo in the Billings, Montana, court records states +Rambold should have received a minimum sentence of two years, not withstanding any extra time a judge may have felt appropriate to tack on. Perhaps prosecutors will find a way to get him more time, although a lifetime in jail would still not be enough after essentially taking the life of a teenager!

In regard to +Judge Baugh, hundreds of women picketed the Billings District Courthouse and demanded his resignation. As well, an online petition is available online at MoveOn.org Petitions (here is the direct link: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/resign-judge-g-todd-baugh.fb29?source=c.fb&r_by=817567). The hope is that enough signatures will force Montana to remove this judge. Regardless, he is up for re-election in 2014 and no one will forget his name by then.

* Note: As of October 6, 2013, close to 60,000 people have signed the MoveOn.org petition. However, there is a goal of 75,000, so please sign it if you haven't already so we can let this judge know his outdated thinking does not fit into our 21st Century values.

Write true, write ethical and write fair!

Why Ordinary People Vote Republican and Extreme Party lLines

By Cheri, The Non-PC News Girl

Let's face it, Republicans in our time are the party for those people who have money. They are the wall-street party. They are the haves. They're not for those who have some savings in the bank or even for those who barely make six-figures. They are for those who make several six figures, millionaires and beyond.

The GOP's (grand old party) core aim is to maintain an outdated social status of those who were born into wealth and for everyone else to fend for themselves. They are the party of the haves, and they don't care for the have-nots. 

Strong-armed by use of money, the GOP are against spending programs that assist the low-income, sick and old, like social security and Medicare; unemployment and retirement benefits; and healthcare. It's ironic considering it was the party of Abraham Lincoln who, as we all know, was on the side of the down-trodden during the civil war. (Is he still turning in his grave?)

They are for tax cuts for the wealthy (despite that they are proven to pay less tax than a middle-class earner--the few that are left); for separatism; secret societies; and ensuring the existance of the military industrial complex (please see my article to come about the MIC). 

So why then do ordinary people without bank vote Republican? I live in Florida where 17% of the population is elderly and live off social security, and yet many vote Republican. It's a red, Republican state. Why would they when if the people they vote for had it their way, they'd take away their livelihood and sustenance? Why do so many people who get food stamps, disability or unemployment turn to the right?

There are two key reasons: religion and abortion. Each election, the Grand Old Party pull out their abortion card and pick the religious strings of Christians. America is, whether we like it or not, a Christian nation and many people have strong views against abortion. We hear election after election how they will overturn Roe v Wade. It's a hot topic, and one that gets them elected over and again. This is despite the fact that nothing is ever done about it once they are elected.

Other items on the Republican ticket are geared to those who are conservative and family-oriented, and those on the hard right who believe homosexuality is wrong and other antiquated beliefs. For people who have similar beliefs, regardless of their income, they are sucked in, as if the left do not have family values. And while they are entitled to their views, bigotry does cross party lines.

The way I see it, the people who make up the Republican party have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of their slaves--we the people. They supervise us and we do all the work for them, and yet many of us have been brainwashed into believing they are our equals. (Like abused kids believing mommy and daddy really does care about them.)

I'm not saying the Democrats are all that different, but at least it is that party they tries or make the appearance to help people. (Emphasis on tries.) This, however, as of the last congressional and presidential elections, has become more questionable. As an Independent voter, I look at the Democrats as a caricature of itself to the far, far left. Like the Republican party, this party too is too extreme in its views, voting and conditions. The middle, more common ground politicians are harder and harder to come by.

As an Independent, I believe the majority of politicians, regardless of party line, come from money and represent their backers when in office. They are disconnected from the common person. Both sides are paid off and both sides have put the country in debt. I personally vote split-ticket and am not for either party, but I am against Republicans more often.

When you think about it, there is often some type of political crisis manufactured by Republican greed that is hidden under the umbrella of economic hardship to the country. In 2013, it was shutting the government down because they didn't get their way on healthcare, like whiney brats throwing a tantrum. They used the "economic-harm-to-the-country" excuse as a political tool and allowed the Tea Party--a very small group of wealthy people--to take control of our country.

Even now that the shutdown is over and the Republicans finally yelled uncle, the country only goes back to its normal dysfunction. And hovering close by is the issue of paying our debts and the restructuring of "Obamacare." Are we in fear of another tantrum if they don't get their way? (It really comes down to this?)

We cannot continue to just forgive and forget. They hold our country hostage, and the damage they cause slowly trickles down in the weeks and months after a "perceived crisis." Already, Standards and Poors estimates government squabbles has cost our economy $24 billion (in 2015), and as it stands, an estimated 800,000 to a 1 million jobs lost in the past few years alone.

More so, people who are not wealthy need to wake up when it comes to voting Republican. They do not care about you! They are more concerned about not having towels in their publicly-paid-for gyms that the people pay for and how many jets they own than the lack of middle-class jobs, our industry that has moved to china so we all buy cheaper and cheaply made products and the dying out of the American dream for everyone. In short, greed comes first.

There are some Republicans who are on the fringe of the right--like a thumb closest to the left hand--that care, but they tend to do what the pinky wants. And what it wants is what's best for wall-street and corporations. Now we have a wall-street president--insane!

What would happen if Republicans ultimately got their way? If you were laid-off and weren't given help with unemployment, housing and food? Would you like to live in a shacktown or homeless encampment like people did during the Great Depression? If you got sick, had no health insurance and couldn't afford the outrageous hospital fees, would you need to just go home and die? (I suppose as long as you did it away from them it would be okay.)

To them, there should be no help with housing! No help with food! No help with education! No help with healthcare! You need to work for what you have and if you can't for whatever reason, such as no jobs, well it's not their problem. This is a capitalistic society and those are not socialist values. ("That's just the way it is, sorry," says the Republican wiping his sweat with the towel you paid for.)

Are these really the people you want representing you?

Write true, write ethical and write right.