No, popsie Palin, we are not a Theocracy, and this is a bad, UN-American Idea

Hey Donald! Keep your hair on! Austraila burns while sea ice scientists are rescued

Australia burns - from Reuters

Record cold, but far more record heat......and birther nut Donald Trump goes nuts on climate change too. 

I wonder if he was in science class the day they taught about how warmer or hot water freezes more quickly than cold?  We know that ocean temperatures are warming.  We know that climate change does NOT posit that seasons will cease to exist, but rather that weather will become far more erratic and volatile, so we will also have record cold AND record heat and drought -- as we have.

The dumb Donald leaves out that yesterday, the day when sea ice scientists were rescued from sea ice, there were also sustained record HOT temperatures in Australia.  The Reuters report on the same day as the rescue notes those recorded sustained changes in climate have resulted in bush fires, and in ranchers having to slaughter their cattle because of the heat and drought.

Australia swelters after record hot 2013; farmers slaughter cattle, bushfire warning

(Reuters) - A searing heatwave is baking central and northern Australia, piling more misery on drought-hit cattle farmers who have been slaughtering livestock as Australia sweltered through the hottest year on record in 2013.Temperatures have topped 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit)in large parts of Australia's key agricultural regions for most of the past week, with the mercury topping 48 degrees Celsius in the central west Queensland town of Birdsville.
The heatwave is moving east across Australia, prompting health warnings on Friday in some of the country's biggest cities and firefighters were already battling bushfires.
But it is in the outback that soaring temperatures have had the most devastating impact, especially on cattle farmers in Queensland, which accounts for about 50 percent on the national herd.
"Water supplies are fast diminishing and whatever feed supplies that were left are cooking off to the point where there won't be any left," said Charles Burke, a beef farmer and chief executive of Agforce, a Queensland cattle industry group.
"This drought is shaping to be an absolute disaster."
Monsoon rains in Australia's north failed last summer and the entire continent endured its hottest year since records began in 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said on Friday.
Average temperatures were 1.2 degree Celsius above the long-term average of 21.8 degree Celsius, breaking the previous record set in 2005.

In view of all that, the inappropriate tweet from Trump is highly offensive.

from Salon:

Donald J. Trump        ✔ @realDonaldTrump Follow

This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice

6:39 PM - 1 Jan 2014

He is as embarrassing and inappropriate as a climate change denier clown as he was a birther, where his kids had to do an intervention.   Trump is as wrong about global warming as he was when factcheck.org busted him lying as a birther.

Somebody hand the man a hat, to cover up that embarrassing comb-over, and a sock for the foot in his mouth.  We can't afford the stupidity that results from right wing science denial.

clown trump

Trump comb-over, blowing in his own hot air

the sock we have in mind
for the foot in his mouth

The so very articulate Matt Farmer on the Chicago Public Schools Crisis

Update on the Apparently Political Quebecois Shooting

An assault rifle (AK-47), some 20 other guns, explosives.

This sounds exactly like the pattern of right wing fanatics who collect private arsenals of weapons with the intention of committing political-focused violence.

I'm expecting that more right wing, anti-French, anti-multiculturalism (Canada, like America, for white western European descended people, and even then, only white people who also speak English), anti-feminism, possibly extreme religious views that include either anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim or both .  There is a weird version of Christianity often is part of white supremacist and other right wing extremist groups.

This guy appears to be another gun nut, heavy emphasis on "nut".  The NRA, not content to influence American politics has been heavily active as well in Canadian politics, which you can read about here.  It will be interesting to see if this (alleged) shooter is involved with any of these groups, given his private aresenal.

From BBC's coverage of the U.S. and Canada: 
Quebec election night shooting suspect in murder charge

Advertisement

The BBC's Lee Carter says there was confusion as the shooting took place.

A man accused of a deadly shooting at a election victory rally in the Canadian province of Quebec has been formally charged and appeared in court.

Richard Henry Bain, 61, of La Conception, Quebec, faces 16 counts including murder and possession of explosives.

One man was killed outside the hall where Parti Quebecois (PQ) leader Pauline Marois was speaking.

The PQ will form a minority government after nine years in opposition.

Mr Bain is a businessman in the ski resort area of Mont Tremblant, Canadian prosecutors told reporters.

Police have found more than 20 guns linked to Mr Bain, including two at the scene and many more at his home. All but one were properly registered, officials said.

...Prosecutors said that following the shots, the back door of the concert hall was set on fire using a flare and accelerant.

Police acknowledged that the PQ leader had been at risk but said the shots were fired some distance from the stage. Witnesses said the gunman had been less than 25ft (7m) from the stage at one point.

The Real Deal

The right wing has gone crazy with new conspiracy theories about Social Security.  They're paranoid about government, to the point of believing crazy stupid things that should be obviously implausible.

So here's the real story:

Why does Social Security need 174,000 bullets?

Despite Web conspiracies theories, it's standard request for agency's armed agents

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

updated 9/4/2012 2:15:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON — It didn't take long for the Internet to start buzzing with conspiracy theories after the Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was purchasing 174,000 hollow-point bullets.
Why is the agency that provides benefits to retirees, disabled workers, widows and children stockpiling ammunition? Whom are they going to use it on?
"It's not outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest," the website Infowars.com said.
Another website, The Daily Caller, said the bullets must be for use against American citizens, "since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens."
The clamor became such a distraction for the agency that it dedicated a website to explaining the purchase. The explanation, it turns out, isn't as tantalizing as an arms buildup to defend against unruly senior citizens.
The bullets are for Social Security's office of inspector general, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes, said Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency's assistant IG for external relations.
The agents carry guns and make arrests — 589 last year, Lasher said. They execute search warrants and respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees and customers.
Agents carry .357 caliber pistols, Lasher said. The bullets, which add up to about 590 per agent, are for the upcoming fiscal year. Most will be expended on the firing range.
Some bloggers have taken issue with the type of ammunition the agency is buying, questioning why agents need hollow-point bullets. Hollow-points are known for causing more tissue damage than other bullets when they hit a person because they expand when they enter the body.
The bullets, however, are standard issue for many law enforcement agencies, Lasher said, a fact confirmed by the directors of two law enforcement training centers.
"For practice ammunition, they do not have to be hollow-points, but hollow-points are the normal police round used for duty ammunition due to their ability to stop when they hit an object as opposed to going through it and striking more objects," said William J. Muldoon, president of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training.
The episode illustrates what can happen when a seemingly salacious tidbit gets amplified and embellished on the Internet.
A few weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had a similar dustup when it solicited bids for 46,000 rounds of ammunition and shooting targets, seemingly to arm workers at the National Weather Service. It turns out the notice had a clerical error and the bullets were for NOAA's Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, the agency said.
Social Security's turn in the pillory hit a crescendo when Jay Leno joked about it in a recent monologue on "The Tonight Show." "What senior citizens are they worried about?" Leno asked. "I mean, who's going to storm the building?"
Lasher said, "That's why we opened a blog post. We were getting a lot of inquiries and the blog gave us a vehicle to put all of the accurate information out there in one place, so that those who are interested or concerned can read what the real story is."

The Massive Difference between NRA Legislation and What Lawful Gun Owners - and most Americans - Support

Who wants criminals to have guns?
Legal gun owners, including NRA members, and non-owners don't want that.
Who makes it EASY for criminals to get guns?
The NRA does, in order to increase the sales for their real clients, the gun manufacturers.  The NRA acts as both a legal gun manufacturer lobby, and an illegal/unregistered one through ALEC, where it buys those thousands of corrupt CONSERVATIVE politicians.

Who characterizes the NRA membership? Conservatives, white, out of shape, crabby old men, make up the majority of the NRA -- which is who the NRA manipulates with ludicrous fear mongering, and outright lies.

The following is to educate Joe Doakes and some of our lurking trolls who lack his courage to comment, readers who either do not recognize or who are apparently too fact averse/ ill-informed about the distinctions between what the NRA promulgates, and what lawful gun owners want.

Pollsters and political operatives don't come any further right, at least none who are respected, more than Frank Luntz.

From MAIG, press release July 24, 2012

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

Among the survey’s key findings:

• 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
  
• There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA members and gun owners:

• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

NRA members strongly support allowing states – not the Federal government – to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places, with 91 percent of NRA members stating states should decide.

By contrast, the NRA leadership’s top Federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit. NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
  
  
• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
  
  
• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
  
  
• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA’s Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

The Luntz findings are in line with previous research showing that Americans are nearly unanimous in their support for closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy firearms without a background check. A January 2011 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns by the bipartisan polling team of Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy a gun or who they but it from.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “It’s time for those in Washington – and those running for President – to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology. I join with NRA members in urging Washington to pass a law requiring universal background checks for all gun sales – and to take other common sense steps that will save lives.”

“This poll shows plain and simply how seriously out-of-step the leadership of the NRA is with its membership – and how, despite what previous polls say, there really is support for common sense gun laws in the U.S.,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. “The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead – and we demand they act now.”

The Luntz poll of 945 gun owners nationwide was conducted in May 2012 and was divided evenly by gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. The poll has a margin of error of + 3 percent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The poll numbers vary, depending on how the questions are asked, but consistently there is an increasing desire for MORE gun control, in response NOT ONLY to mass shootings but to all the shootings, the suicides, the murders / homicides with firearms, the muder/ suicides, the accidental shootings, and especially the deaths and injuries involving children,

Here are a few more polls from this year that illustrate that the NRA DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL/LAWFUL GUN OWNERS, but rather represents a narrow segment of extremist conservatives who are fact averse, and arguably hold views which are tantamount to political insanity.

The NRA is out of touch with most gun owners, and more importantly with most Americans (gun owning or non-gun owning).

Here is are the results from a CNN poll recently, that show that not even all conservatives agree with the NRA, and that 90% favor some of the legislation which could have assisted law enforcement to disarm the shooter who executed a former co-worker with five rounds on Friday BEFORE that event happened, resulting in the injuring of 9 other people.  Excerpts in bold, and enlarged are my emphasis - DG

"Not surprisingly, there are gender and ideological gaps on this issue, with more than six in ten women and two thirds of self-described liberals supporting major restrictions or a complete ban, compared to just 34% of men and 36% of self-described conservatives," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And major restrictions on guns are most popular in urban areas and in the Northeast than in the rest of the country."

What specific restrictions do Americans favor?

The poll indicates that two meet with almost unanimous approval: Ninety-six percent are in favor of background checks and 91% support laws to prevent convicted felons or people with mental health problems from owning guns.

Three-quarters of people questioned favor gun registration with local governments, and roughly six in ten favor bans on the sale or possession of semi-automaticweapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. But 54% oppose a limit on the number of guns an individual can own, and only one in ten think that all Americans should be prevented from owning guns.

And from a CBS News poll after the Gabby Giffords mass shootings:

Even those who live in gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, the poll finds, although by a smaller margin than with the rest of the population: 54 percent of those Americans favor a ban on assault weapons, and 44 percent oppose such a ban.

The survey also indicates that nearly two in three Americans favor a ban on high capacity clips that can hold dozens of rounds like the ones used in the Arizona shootings. Sixty-three percent favor a ban on such clips (including 58 percent of gun-owning households), while 34 percent oppose it.

And while there are partisan differences on many of these questions, with Democrats more supportive of tougher gun laws than Republicans, half of Republicans also favor a ban on assault weapons and on high capacity magazines.

And there was this state-wide poll in Wisconsin that shows support from gun owners AND from NRA members for the kinds of background checks on gun sales that the NRA has obstructed.  The consistent pattern has been that while there ARE Republicans who support stricter gun regulation, the more extreme right one goes, the more anti-gun control attitudes one finds. (again, emphasis added below is mine - DG)

From PR Newswire/United Business Media.:

Statewide Bipartisan Poll Commissioned by WAVE Reveals Overwhelming Support for Background Checks on All Gun Sales
Release of Poll Highlights Comes on the Heels of International Association of Chiefs of Police Groundbreaking Report Also Calling for Background

Checks on All Gun Sales

MILWAUKEE, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort Executive Director, Jeri Bonavia, released the following information
and statement today in response to the new International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) groundbreaking report: "Taking a Stand: Reducing
Gun Violence in Our Communities."
     See the IACP complete report here:
http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/docs/Embargoed_IACP_Report.pdf
     The IACP report calls on local, state and federal lawmakers to enact
almost 40 recommendations to reduce gun violence and reverse the nationwide
upswing in violent crime. One of the most effective recommendations from
IACP was a requirement to conduct criminal background checks prior to all
gun sales.
     This concurs with a comprehensive, statewide bipartisan poll recently
commissioned by Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, which found that there is
overwhelming public support for a law that would require background on all
gun sales.
     The poll was jointly conducted by a right-leaning polling firm,
Overbrook Research, and by a left-leaning firm, Lake Research Partners.
WAVE is planning a comprehensive release of the poll results in the coming
weeks.
     Some highlights of the Wisconsin statewide bipartisan poll:
     Eight out of ten likely Wisconsin voters support requiring a background
check on all gun sales;
     85% of Wisconsin residents, including 80% of gun owners, think gun
violence is a serious problem;
     Seven out of ten NRA supporters or members support background checks on
all gun sales.
     "This groundbreaking report from our nation's police chiefs highlights
the need to address gun violence with sensible and effective policies,"
said Jeri Bonavia. "Specifically, the chiefs of police and the people of
Wisconsin agree that conducting background checks on all gun sales is an
effective way to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer."

(Note, I tried to activate a link to the site indicated in this report, but couldn't find one that was current.)

And then there was this from the HuffPo regarding another bi-partisan poll taken a year ago April, emphasis added is again mine:

WASHINGTON -- Despite powerful lobbying against any new gun-control measures by groups like the National Rifle Association, a new bipartisan poll shows that both gun owners and the general public support stronger measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and other potentially dangerous individuals.
The poll -- conducted for the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino -- suggests that while far-reaching gun-control legislation seems unlikely to pass, some narrower measures may be able to earn bipartisan support.
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:

-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

-- 89 percent of Americans and 85 percent of gun owners support a law to require background checks for all guns sold at gun shows.

In terms of protecting Second Amendment rights, 79 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners said they believe an individual has the right to own guns, and the amendment is not limited to protecting the rights of state militias. Eighty percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners oppose a law that would ban the sale of all handguns.
The survey also asked whether respondents believe that "the sale of guns should be more strict." Fifty-one percent said they agreed with that statement, 7 percent more than agreed in a November Gallup poll using nearly identical wording and 4 percent more than what CBS found using similar wording last week.
Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter in the tragic Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona, legally obtained the Glock-19 pistol that he eventually used to kill six people and wound 13 others. Despite his documented history of drug abuse, Loughner was able to slip through the cracks and become a gun owner.
In the months following the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, lawmakers passed a bill meant to increase the number of records entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. But three years later, hundreds of thousands of records are still missing, allowing many to pass background checks they might otherwise fail. Additionally, since 2007, Congress allocated only $20 million of the $375 million authorized in the law.
"Our coalition of mayors has fought for years to fix our federal background check system and close loopholes that give dangerous people a way to get around the requirement altogether," Bloomberg said in a statement on the poll's findings. "This poll shows that, particularly in the wake of yet another tragic mass shooting, Americans and gun owners agree with our efforts. If the tragedy in Tucson was not enough to ensure that Congress finally takes action, we hope this clear call for reform from the public will add to the groundswell of support."
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."

NYC Shooting video

Police have more training than most civilians. We will see as the details play out how well that training served both the officers and the bystanders in this situation.

One of the more interesting news stories I've read, in my curiosity about the individuals involved, is that the shooter claimed to have been some sort of shooting expert, sharpshooter or sniper, and that he told people a changing story about having been in different war conflicts that do not appear to be true. What relationship or interest the shooter had in firearms will be one aspect of this incident. Some of the services have indicated that he was not in fact enlisted; the only one not heard from so far that it is speculated he may have served in is the Coast Guard.

The fact that most of the injured are from bullet fragments and shrapnel or ricochets with only two injured speaks well for the shooting expertise of the officers.

The issue of two innocent bystanders being shot at all simply underlines why it is not desirable to shoot in crowded areas where law enforcement or anyone else could easily hit a bystander rather than the intended target. At least, as the first video of the event shows, those nearby had space to get out of the way, unlike the crowded Aurora theater where egress was limited, and the officers could see their target clearly.

However these police officers will be second guessed, their judgment will be professionally evaluated, and the rights and wrongs of their decisions will be assessed; they will be held accountable to a higher standard than civilians in the same situation, and the degree to which they complied with their training and safety directives will be determined, as will the degree to which they gave proper consideration for public safety (or didn't).

It is very difficult to assess the performance of these officers from one grainy video. In New York, they should have multiple angle coverage of all of this event, which will assist analysis. Until we have seen more of that footage, it is difficult and wrong to second guess these officers.

As part of the New York City anti-terrorist squad, I can only commend them however for their effort to protect innocent people, even if they made mistakes. They have a difficult job, one that puts their lives at risk for others, not just here in this incident but daily, and not just from shootings but from a large variety of threats; THAT deserves our respect, admiration and support.
 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Because Sometimes Politics is a Kick - Let's Hear it For Crate-Gate Music!

I laughed out loud; the dogs barked and leaped about.  I hope you do the same.

From MSN entertainment, and the 'you couldn't make this stuff up' department:

Music News

© Janet Macoska/Retna Ltd.

Devo to release song about Mitt Romney's dog

Aug. 15, 2012, 10:06 AM EST

By Rolling Stone
Devo are set to release a track later this month titled "Don't Roof Rack Me, Bro! (Remember Seamus)." It is inspired by Mitt Romney's notorious road trip from Massachusetts to Ontario, during which he transported the family dog, Seamus, in a kennel strapped to the roof of his station wagon.
According to the Orchard, the distributor behind the track, the digital single will be released on Aug. 25.
The track also comes as Devo's founder and commercial director, Gerald V. Casale, kicks off his Remember Seamus campaign, which is supposed to help "make 2012 the year where animals like Seamus are valued and honesty is praised."
Devo are also helping to back Dogs Against Romney, with Casale designing a special-edition shirt for the group. Casale is also involved in an upcoming smartphone game called "The Crate Escape: Seamus Unleashed," which sees release on Aug. 26, otherwise known as National Dog Day.
More from Rollingstone.com:
Obama Campaign Launches 'DJs for Obama'
'Portlandia' Stars Cover Devo's 'Beautiful World'

Iowa Congressman Stephen King Doesn't Believe Incest OR Statutory Rape Can Result in Pregnancy

This is the result of so-called abstinence education that perpetuates myths, and the worst kinds of reproductive ignorance.  These are the old white men who perpetuate conservative myths in legislation, without ever bothering to fact check any of their beliefs, no matter how implausible or ridiculous they are. The older and/or more conservative, the worse they seem to be, not only on this topic, but on every topic requiring some form of basic factual education.

If anything, maybe Mike Huckabee should sit down with King and give him a little bio lesson on the REAL origins of Ethel Waters.  I can't wait, on the basis of a stupid belief by Steve King for the denial of the reproductive choice of non-violent statutory rape and incest next time the House of Representatives meets to engage in right wing culture war on women.

I continue to ask myself how anyone who is older than say.....9 years of age, could possibly believe the factually inaccurate things that these old white conservative men believe.   King has at least a high school education, some college, and comes from an agricultural district where presumably he might have encountered some animal husbandry knowledge of the birds and the bees.  It's not like he's one of those urban dwellers who have never seen livestock.

The following only serves to prove not only how badly informed and out of touch the Tea Party far right extremists are, but how bone ignorant, as a group, they tend to be.  No one should allow someone this foolish, this ill-informed, this generally ignorant of the most basic facts of life to propose or vote on legislation at any level, much less the federal level where it affects the entire nation.  King should be deeply ashamed of his deficiencies.  No wonder these dolts don't believe in global warming, or evolution; we should probably be grateful if they understand the earth is not flat and that the earth rotates around the sun.  While King's office tries to do damage control, it sure sounds like this guy believes that as with forcible rape, it just doesn't happen except as a freakishly rare occurrence, when in fact the opposite is true.

From Talking Points Memo:

Rep. Steve King: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest

10 inShare. share Evan McMorris-Santoro-August 21, 2012, 12:12 PM363083 Updated at 1:59 p.m. Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion. King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest. “Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.” A Democratic source flagged King’s praise of Akin in the KMEG interview to TPM. But potentially more controversial for King is his suggestion that pregnancies from statutory rape or incest don’t exist or happen rarely. A 1996 review by the Guttmacher Institute found “at least half of all babies born to minor women are fathered by adult men.” Contacted by TPM, King’s office said that King didn’t mean he had never heard of pregnancy resulting from statutory rape or incest but that he had no direct, personal knowledge of such instances. “What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.” The tie between statutory rape and teen pregnancy has been the subject of ad campaigns from groups like United Way. H.R. 3, the bill co-sponsored by King, Akin and Paul Ryan in 2011, originally called for an exemption in the federal ban on abortion funding only in the case of “forcible rape.” That language was dropped after pressure from women’s advocates and Democrats. At the time, the Republican sponsors of the legislation weren’t too interested in discussing their reasoning for the wording. RELATED: Todd Akin Says Victims of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant King’s comments offer a window into the thinking behind the language, as well as the general belief in the different categories of rape that provoked Akin’s recent controversial comments about “legitimate rape” and the factually wrong idea that a woman’s body can prevent a pregnancy from rape. Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption. “That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said. In the KMEG interview, King defended Akin as “a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family” and appeared to push back on those calling for Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race. “I think this election should be about: How did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for?” King said. “In this case, I’m seeing the same thing, petty, personal attacks substituting for strong policy.” Watch raw video of the KMEG interview below. The version of the story as it was broadcast is here.

UPDATE 2:
After this post was published, King’s office said he had been taken out of context.

As TPM originally reported, King’s response to a question about whether a young girl who gets pregnant should have to carry a baby to term was, “I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way.” King was not asked whether he knew anyone personally who had been in such a circumstance.
Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption.
“That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently not, not in the case of King, not in the case of Ryan, not in the case of Akin, and certainly not in the case of many other Republicans and Tea Partiers I've profiled in the last few days.  But then when it comes to reproductive rights, these individuals say so much that is not true, it is perhaps understandable that they confuse themselves as to facts more than anyone else.
 

Todd Akin Changes His Story to a More Convenient and Appealing Lie

Todd Akin has embarrassed the Republican party by saying all the same things the Republican Party says anyway.  He just did it more clumsily.

Now we have Todd Akin trying trying anything and everything to cover his ass politically. I disagree strongly with any assertion we should hate Akin or any other fascist and tyrannical conservative; but we should strongly oppose them. This is fascist, this is authoritarian, this is not freedom, all though it appears to promote free 'dumb', in the sense of appealing to the lowest possible denominator.



For those who believe that the Republicans do ensure that abortion will be a legal option for women who are the victims of rape or incest or for medical reasons to save the life of the mother, think again.  That is a lie.

This is the Republican platform of extremism, of intolerance, of forcing religious views on issues without a scientific or ethical justification OTHER than the more extreme variants of religion.  For women who need an abortion for medical reasons, they want to make pregnancy a death sentence, as it was recently in a third world country.

From the Progress Report:No Abortion. No Exceptions.

Aug 21, 2012 | By ThinkProgress War Room

GOP Doubles Down on Extreme Social Agenda

Even as Republicans attempt to distance themselves from the comments about “legitimate rape” made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), they once again reaffirmed that they agree with Akin and other extremists when it comes to women’s health issues.

Just today, the committee drafting the Republican Party’s official policy platform underscored the fact that Republicans believe we need a constitutional ban on abortion in all circumstances — no exceptions for victims of rape or incest or to protect the life of the woman, not to mention any of the numerous other reasons a woman may need an abortion.

No abortion. No exceptions.

Not coincidentally, the GOP’s platform committee is chaired by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who received national condemnation for his support of a bill mandating that women seeking abortions receive costly transvaginal ultrasounds regardless of medical need.

Relying on Mike Huckabee to give him softball questions, Todd Akin went back on his radio show to clarify that he meant forcible rape when he used the word legitimate rape.  He is apparently trying to tie himself more closely to his bill-buddy on HR 3, Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, grabbing on with both hands to those shirt tails even as Ryan and Romney and Reince Preibus try to distance themselves.

 

But then Todd Akin, in his pathetic attempt to pander to the anti-abortion extremists, played the 'women lie about rape' card, doubling down by invoking Roe v. Wade.  The reality is that while the woman identified as 'Roe' could not get a legal abortion except in cases of rape or incest in Texas, she considered lying about being raped.  She never claimed it. She never actually reported to any law enforcement that she was raped, she never got an abortion claiming she was raped, she never accused anyone falsely of rape. In her desperation, she considered lying, and she also tried to get an illegal abortion because of being unable to get a legal one.  Do we want women resorting to illegal abortions again in this country? NO, emphatically NO. The age of the coat hanger abortion or the knitting needle abortion or the lye abortion or the dirty butcher abortion should be over forever.  In the actual court case Roe v. Wade won by her attorney, there was never any issue raised of a false claim of rape.  Todd Akin is improperly raising that claim here. In point of fact, the woman had the child, but she was such a bad candidate for having children, her children were taken away from her as an unfit mother.  Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of why some women don't want to be pregant and should not be forced to be pregnant.  It is a perfect example of why we need legal abortions, not abortion that is criminalized.  Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of why government should not be intrusive in people's lives, but allow women and their doctors to make decisions about their reproductive health.

Rape is Rape.  The Obama administration has been correct to remove any legal distinction, and the fact that a legal definition existed was quite different from establishing a federal tier system making some forms of rape 'more rape' than others.  The real purpose of the tier system was to try to deny womne abortions for some types of rape, nothing more nor less, so the Republicans could still claim they would allow abortion for rape.  Just not if you are a raped girl, or a drugged or unconscious woman, or otherwise have been incapactitated by your rapist.  Ryan and Akin are trying to deny those women and girls - yes GIRLS - access to an abortion.

But it gets worse. YES, it CAN get worse.

Worse, are the efforts by Paul Ryan to make it possible for a woman's rapist to go into court to prevent a woman from having an abortion after a rape.

 

The anti-abortion Right wingers have NO scientific evidence that a cluster of undifferentiated cells which have not yet formed a human being are a separate and full existing person.  I have argued here, repeatedly, that all cells have DNA, some human beings like identical twins have identical DNA, and so are no different than cloned human beings would be, and that a skin cell from a hangnail can, under the right circumstances, develop into a fetus in the same way that a zygote develops into a fetus.

We don't recognize might be, or eventually after changes, as the same. We don't distinguish between separate human beings on the basis of different or same DNA either.  We don't relegate children born from scientific intervention through in vitro fertilization as less human or more human because of that scientific assistance.  NONE of those things should be the basis for determining anything about abortion or about legality for being born either.  The GOP wants to interfere with all of those.

There are two, and only two criteria which logically and scientifically should have any consideration for abortion.  The first is that we do not require, ever, one human being to make their body, or parts of it, available to another for that other person to live. 

We don't require someone with a universal donor blood type to donate their blood, on the assumption they have enough and can produce more.  We don't require a person to donate a lung or kidney, on the presumption they can function with one, so that another person can live.  We don't force a person who is an ideal match to donate bone marrow, even though they can replace that normally in their body over a quite short of time.  We in fact have a law in place making it illegal to even compensate them for their expenses, much less force them to donate, so as not to offer even positive inducement to do so, never mind coerce them to donate a body part.  It should be no different for women, that within a reasonable period of time, they should have the option NOT to be forced to subordinate and supply their body to what is not a separate human being but is only the potential cells that could become a human being - OR NOT.  We cannot identify one human being as having an inviolate body, but then say ------ except NOT for slightly more than half the human race, on the basis of gender, under this one circumstance. 

We either recognize the right of one person NOT to make their body forcibly available to another to save the other person's life, or we do not, period.  We don't force sterilization on people any longer; we recognize that was a mistake.  Why would we then force pregnancy on an unwilling woman? It is as wrong to coerce the other extreme as it was to coerce sterilization, for the same reasons. 

We emphatically do not require one person to give up their life for another - as in coercing them to donate their heart or any other party of themselves without which they could live. So why would we require a woman to be pregnant if it kills her?  Or in some cases, the GOP would require it even if it kills the woman AND the fetus or embryo -- WHERE is the sanctity of life, or any sanity or reason in that?  This right wing pseudo-thinking is emotion it is not rational, it is not factual, it is based on belief without facts.  It is based on bad morality which devalues women as human beings.

The second criteria should be the exact same one, for consistency sake, and because it has been thoroughly critiqued and evaluated both legally and ethically for validity -- we determine death as an absence of a certain level of brain function and activity.  That same standard should be the criteria for when we provide a legal recognition status to an embryo.  We should be consistent; we have a good functional criteria for life, neurological activity, which works for existing human beings, so why not use if for those who are not but might become human beings?  That should be the same criteria for dealing with frozen IVF conceptuses, frozen semen, and frozen ova.  Might be, might or might not become but ISN'T YET -- one consistent, logical, scientific, ETHICAL criteria for determining what is or is not a human being as distinct from the potential to become a human being.

THAT is the kind of thinking we need - actual thinking, not blind ideology or blind theology in making law and in governing lives and in funding health care decisions. Or in electing anyone to public office.

If the GOP stays in any kind of power anywhere at any level - local, state, or federal - women will die who could live.  Women will become ill who could be healthy.  Women will lose their autonomy and their equality.  All progress will be lost if these neanderthals win; (and that is probably insulting neanderthals as a group).

As noted at Time Magazine by Erika Christakis in her article:

Health & Science

Todd Akin Fallout: Rape, Abortion and the Dark History of Qualifying Violence Against Women

The "forcible rape" canard has been around for a while. The problem is in trying to police the kind of trauma that merits the right to an abortion

 

...More recently, vice-presidential candidate Ryan drew fire for language in the co-sponsored No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that initially distinguished between “forcible rape” and statutory rape of minors or nonviolent rapes that could affect mentally impaired, retarded or drugged women.

The victim blaming harkens back to the days when it was accepted wisdom that “good” women were incapable of being raped and some people thought conception could only occur if a woman achieved orgasm. It’s not a great distance from such obtuseness to practices in countries like Pakistan, where marital rape is not recognized legally and women are treated as criminals, not victims, unless they can produce multiple male witnesses to their rape.
But it’s a mistake to get mired in pregnancy rates. The problem is in trying to police the kind of pregnancy trauma that merits the right to an abortion. Incest is culturally noxious, of course, but is it always worse than other traumatic conception stories? And just how much incest are we willing to tolerate, anyway, before making abortion an exception? Incest between siblings? Parent and adult child? Second cousins? Are we really certain that a 13-year-old girl who has sex with a 35-year-old neighbor is in less need of an abortion exception than an “assaultive” rape victim (whatever that means)? What about a couple with Down syndrome whose parents forgot to explain birth control? Or a schizophrenic patient who was found in bed with a hospital employee? What about a woman facing financial catastrophe or crushing depression?

There will always be nuance and ambiguity as far as pregnancy is concerned. That’s why many Americans have long preferred to stay out of first-trimester-abortion decisions, leaving them to a woman and her doctor, partner and conscience. People on all sides of the abortion debate should instead unite to prevent as many abortions as possible through comprehensive sex education; better access to family planning; improved support for adoption; and greater compassion for living, breathing parents and not only their unborn children. To this list, we might also add better science education for legislators.
-----------------

We need to repudiate right wing politicians and right wing policies that would take us back to the legal traditions of the 12th and 13th century, of ignorance, and of misogyny.  And we should not be rewarding liars and ignorant old men with power.

 

Doubling Down on Dumb: Right wing Extremists Deny Facts. Again.

The right wing extremists that Bachmann and Cravaack run with claim a lot of ignorant, hateful things; they are routinely factually deficient, one might better say factually defective, as they seem not only to lack an acquaintance with reality but to be incapable of recognizing it.

As our commenter Minnesota Central noted, the right wingers supported redefining rape as 'real' rape/ forcible rape, 'legitimate' rape as only when it is violent enough.  Drugging a woman wouldn't be rape to them.  Taking advantage of a 12 year old girl, as in statutory rape, or incest, hey -- that's not rape to them, that's just getting a head start "on God's plan", as Sharron Angle describes it. Threatening a woman into sex, without leaving any bruises......nah, they don't want to define THAT as rape either.  Unless you can show blood, bruises, and broken bones, your rape just doesn't count, at least, not ENOUGH for an abortion.

These are prominent members of the party - the GOP, the Tea Party - who have opposed and obstructed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  Wow -- how surprising is THAT?

What views they hold seems to change slightly, depending on who is listening, depending on who they are trying to extract donations from, but the far right misogyny is true of Paul Ryan, that is true of Mittens on R-money too,except when he decides that rape ISN'T a justification for abortion EVER, and nor are incest, or saving the life of the mother.

Here is the reality; one assessment from the CDC puts the rate of pregnancy from rape at around 5%, more than 32,000 a year. 
Rape is under-reported, so it could well be much higher. Another study found rape resulting in pregnancy even higher:

"published in 2003, went even further: It found that a single act of rape was more than twice as likely to result in pregnancy than an act of consensual sex.

The study, “Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?” was published in the journal Human Nature by Jonathan A. Gottschall and Tiffani A. Gottschall, two professors at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y. They used data from the federally administered National Violence Against Women survey. There, they found a sample of 405 women between the ages of 12 and 45 who had experienced one incidence of rape that included intercourse.

Of those 405 women included in the sample, 6.4 percent — or 26 women — reported a pregnancy that year. A separate large-scale study showed that, for the general population of women that age, the per-incidence pregnancy rate for a single act of intercourse is 3.1 percent."

So a woman is MORE likely to become pregnant from rape, NOT LESS.  If there are any hormone activity going on, it is on the male side of rape, and it is encouraging not discouraging pregnancy. From Popular Science:
I called Gordon Gallup for his perspective on rape-related pregnancy. Last year, during a conversation about the antidepressant effects of semen, he mentioned a theory that the nature of a rapist's ejaculate has something to do with his reproductive success. When I asked him to elaborate on that, he told me that semen contains follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), which trigger ovulation during the female menstrual cycle. FSH is needed for sperm production, but the presence of LH in high levels is more mysterious because it's not important for male fertility. It's possible, Gallup says, that seminal fluid released during forced sex contains higher-than-normal levels of these hormones -- LH in particular -- which may trigger ovulation in the victim.
There's no direct evidence yet of sex-induced ovulation in humans, although there's some very new research hinting at the possibility. The LH in semen has been shown to trigger ovulation in camels, alpacas and llamas. Semen also makes female koalas ovulate, although LH hasn't been identified as the active ingredient in that species' semen yet. A 1973 study found that 70 percent of conceptions from rape occurred outside a woman's most fertile time. And a 1949 study cited seven women who reported becoming pregnant due to rape, despite having not had a period for up to two years leading up to the assault.
The idea that semen produced during rape is especially primed to promote pregnancy seems less far-fetched considering the well-established evidence that what a man is doing when he ejaculates affects the chemical makeup of his semen. Studies on artificial insemination show that semen collected from a man who used his imagination to become aroused and ejaculate is much less likely to result in conception than a sample collected from a man watching porn, Gallup says. Even more potent is semen collected after coitus interupptus, i.e. pulling out during actual sex. The conditions under which a man becomes aroused and ejaculates has been shown to affect factors like sperm count, shape and mobility.
If semen changes based on context, it's plausible, Gallup asserts, that participating in a rape can affect its chemical makeup. Ovulation-inducing semen would be especially useful during rape, which is usually a one-time encounter. As sinister as it is, the ability to unconsciously adjust semen to make it more potent during rape could be one reproductive strategy that evolved in men to increase their reproductive success.
In addition to the devastating physical and emotional consequences of rape for the victim, things are also grim from the evolutionary perspective. "The problem with rape if conception occurs, is that it precludes making an informed mate choice, which is the principal means by which females maximize their fitness," Gallup says. "And it means that the female is not going to be subject to protection and provisioning by the child's father. Women are left holding the bag, so to speak."
Women appear to have evolved mechanisms to counteract these tactics and control their fertility. I've written about these kinds of dueling reproductive forces, known as antagonist coevolution, before. Some quick examples in human females: Research shows that women engage in less sexually risky behavior around ovulation, when they're likely to get pregnant, and their hand-grip strength, a measure of physical resistance, is enhanced during ovulation if they read a sexual-assault scenario, a mechanism that may have evolved to enable the female to more effectively resist rape when they're fertile.
----------------------------------------------
Clearly a slight increase in hand strength is not sufficient to prevent rape, or to alter the outcome of conception.  However the following, continuing from the Popular Science Article, does suggest women's bodies might be having more spontaneous abortions.  Continuing from the article:
------------------------------------------------

In saying that women "shut down" pregnancy after rape, Rep. Akin unwittingly stumbled upon the concept that women's bodies reject unfamiliar sperm. In 2006, Gallup and his co-author Jennifer Davis published their theory that preeclampsia, a common pregnancy complication that can result in spontaneous abortion, evolved as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen. (I say unwittingly because Akin was more likely referring to a theory that the fear and trauma of rape causes a woman's fallopian tubes to tighten, thus preventing pregnancy. This idea, proposed by John C. Willke, a physician and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, has been lambasted by other doctors.)
Psychologist and writer Jesse Bering explained the preeclampsia idea in his excellent post, which I highly recommend you read in its entirety: "By the early 1980s, scientists had started to notice that preeclampsia was more likely to occur in pregnancies resulting from "one-night stands," artificial insemination and rape than in pregnancies that were the product of long-term sexual cohabitation. That it was the woman's prior exposure to the male's semen that was responsible for this pattern was evident by the fact that couples who'd been using barrier contraceptives (such as condoms), or who practiced coitus interruptus (in which the man withdraws prior to ejaculation) before they began trying to conceive also had higher rates of preeclampsia than those who'd been engaging in unprotected sex for some time."
Bering continued, ""It may be useful to think about preeclampsia not simply as a medical anomaly," reason the authors, "but as an adaptation that may have evolved to terminate pregnancies where future paternal investment was questionable or unlikely."
Now, none of this means that rape-related pregnancies are rare, or that biology should be trusted to ward off these pregnancies. The sheer numbers of pregnancies from rape tell us that it's happening -- a lot. And, obviously, preeclampsia is not the solution. Having the right to choose what to do about it is.
------------------------------------------

I see where Akin has checked out the facts subsequent to his horrific gaffe.

Here is my problem -- shouldn't Akin have checked out all these facts a long time ago, including well before he co-sponsored legislation on rape and abortion?  His checking out the facts now is laudable, but it is still too little too late.

And it appears to be more than many other Republicans and Tea Partiers have bothered to do; but then there is so much less point for them to check out facts.  They would just replace them immediately with religious superstition and self-serving political ideology anyway.

What I Learned from My First Day as an Election Judge

Less than a month ago, I took the training offered through my county to become an election judge. I signed up for that training by contacting the county auditor/treasurer who has the duty to administer elections, and I also had to go through our township clerk, who administers the precinct in which I live, because I had indicated I wanted to work in that precinct, but some election judges end up serving in other precincts, for a variety of reasons.
The regular training was two hours long, of pretty compressed content; by that, I mean every possible topic was covered, thoroughly, but it moved along pretty briskly.  There was time allowed for questions and answer.  Many of the people in our class were previous election judges; some of them with decades of experience, including two who remarked on one questionable voter they had known personally, and reported to the County Attorney for voting in the wrong precinct after the election, but who was allowed to vote in the last election.
There were roughly 40 people in my class, which was one of I believe 18 sessions of the training offered by my county.  It is my understanding that every election, no matter how experienced, EVERYBODY goes through at least the basic 2 hour training.  I didn't get the impression there was a lot of turn over in election judges, but rather that the overwhelming majority do it every election.  There is not a high turnover rate, apparently, and this is apparently fairly typical across the state as a general observation.  Some of the people I actually worked with, but who were not in my class session, had served as election judges for decades, between thirty and forty years.
I took the extra hour of training which was required to be a head election judge; most of that training involved hands on experience with trouble shooting the equipment used in the election.  That involved the ballot counting equipment, and a device that is an auto-marker, which allows disabled people to mark their ballots without an individual assisting them if they so desire.  It can provide ballot assistance by voice, it has keys for Braille, it has a screen that can enlarge the type face on the ballot to gi-normous, and it can reverse the type so it shows up white on a dark background, which is apparently helpful for people who suffer from a particular type of vision difficulty associated with macular degeneration.  It has a lot of bells and whistles, but it is a pain in the butt to actually use.  We were given the advice however that for the primary election, where one cannot cross over between the two parties in voting, when someone is having problems repeatedly spoiling a ballot so that it cannot properly be counted by the ballot counting equipment, to steer people to the auto mark because it only lets them choose one or the other party, and will prevent additional spoiled ballots.
We also had a magnifying glass available for any individual who found a ballot difficult to read.
During my shift, we had five spoiled ballots.  One person didn't get their ballot properly marked until the third try; two others simply made mistakes.  Spoiled ballots are kept in a separate file, but ALL of them are kept. 
The day of the primary, I had the early shift - I was assigned to be at our polling place at 6:30 for polls opening at 7 a.m., along with one other person.  A few other people were assigned at 6, to prep the polling place.  Two of us were not necessary for that part, but our shifts overlapped the majority shift change, so that transitions would be easier, if we were really busy at the shift change hour.  Two of our judges were a husband and wife couple.  It used to be that they couldn't serve in the same precinct in an election, so one of them would go to the next nearest town, some 5-8 miles away.  Now they are allowed to serve in the same precinct, but not on the same shift.  The wife was the other judge with whom I counted and initialed ballots.  She and her husband have been election judges for decades.  I was the only new person, the first addition in quite a while.
My contribution to the opening of the polling place was to count the ballots in the package, and to then be one of the two judges to initial each ballot.  They are slightly heavier than regular typing or copy paper, so it often feels like you have two stuck together.  One of the election judges helping to open the polls recalled an election a few years earlier (few being more like 8 or 10) where two ballots HAD stuck together, resulting in the ballot count being off by 1, which took them 4 hours longer to resolve than would otherwise have been necessary to close the polls and go home after the election, so I and the other election judge entrusted with initialing ballots were told to be very accurate, and take as long as we needed to do so to be sure every pack matched up properly in number.
Yes, THIS is the exciting kind of jobs entailed in election judging. If you dislike detail work, it will drive you nuts.  If you have a low threshold for boredom, you will be climbing the walls very quickly. If you're not a people person........don't do this, you'll hate it.  But the people who volunteer to do this work were very pleasant, and that made it much less tedious to do.
I learned that the past two primaries, since the dates were moved back into August from September have been significantly lower in turnout, and ours was from the September numbers.  It was a gorgeous day, and I'm sure there were voters who preferred to head for the golf course or other activities if they could get away from working etc.  I learned that the number of ballots we were provided expanded by 10% on the previous primary, to account for possible increases in population of people who had turned 18 in the interim.  I don't know if that is the formula used by other areas, but I do know that a shortage of ballots has not been a significant problem.  I haven't found any election judges personally who have experienced that problem in Minnesota but I don't claim to have met every election judge, obviously.  However unlike other states, a ballot shortage isn't a significantly reported problem.  In states where ballot shortages do occur, they have tended to be Republicans shorting Democratic leaning voting districts, btw.
So after the ballot counting and initialing took place, and the official declamation of the polls being officially opened after all appropriate signage inside and out had been installed, including the flag put in place - a requirement - we unlocked the doors and ........waited.  I had indicated that I would like to rotate through the different tasks, but instead I ended up spending the entire day checking people in with the voter roster. 
The top ranking head judge/township clerk, a veteran of decades of elections, took care of same day registration, of which we had zero.  Although one elderly couple was brought in by their daughter to register.  Maps were brought out, precinct boundaries were checked, and every possible bit of minutiae was verified.  Our polling place was actually closer to where the elderly couple lived, as they were near the border between the precincts, which was why their daughter made the mistake of bringing them to our location.  The essence of the registration was resolved quite efficiently, but due to the low turnout, the clarification was in some small measure, part of the social aspect of the community as well as just the business of voting.
I had one of the books, the registered voter roster, for the first part of the alphabet.  Part of familiarizing myself with it, prior to the anticlimactic opening of the doors, was to go through it page by page.  The point was to check to see if we had any names which included indicators of the numeric identifier for a different school district.  Some precincts included parts of four school districts; ours was almost entirely one school district, with a small area that belonged to another school district that overlapped our jurisdiction.  After checking every entry on every page in the roster, we concluded that every name was in the same school district.
But because voter turnout was low and slow, we also checked all of our maps.  The conclusion of the combined judges who had, with the exception of myself, each lived in the area for multiple decades, was that the area was definitively farm fields, without any residence on it that would belong to the other school district.  There wasn't a ballot issue for the school district or any school board elections etc. on the primary ballot, but this was in part in anticipation of there being something on the general election ballot in November.
The other purpose in going through the roster was to look for notations of a voter challenge.  In my book, the one covering the first part of the alphabet, there were four.  One was a married couple, listed at the same address, with the notation of mail returned.  Several of the judges had seen the couple in the past week, and could verify that they still lived at that address.  A third entry was also a notation of mail returned. And one entry had a felony notation.  Special verification was required if one of those individuals presented themselves to vote; none of them did, during my shift.  That verification by the head election judge would have required some questions to clarify the challenge to affirm appropriate legal voting status, and in the case of the felon notation, confirmation would be sought from the county auditor's office, which would verify with any other office or agency whatever was necessary.
None of those people, or anyone with a notation in any of the other voter roster books showed up during my shift, which covered the first half of the day.  However, the notations DID present the opportunity to bone up on some of the finer points of getting people signed in on the rosters before they were directed to the person handing them voters their ballots in the secret ballot plastic sleeve.
Again, out came the various maps with the official boundaries of the precincts outlined on them.  It turns out that there were a few houses that had changed the precincts in which they fell.  We had very badly damaging storms since the 2010 election.  The houses hadn't moved; there wasn't any Wizard-of-Oz activity, but one house in our precinct that was located on a corner lot HAD changed where their garage was rebuilt, and where their driveway came out to the road.  This changed the street on which their address was located.  They had not moved, but when that address change had occurred, they had not updated their voter registration.  I don't think that would have occurred to me to do either if I hadn't moved from the same house.  That was the explanation for one registration with a returned mail notation.  Another house was right on the dividing line of the precinct boundary; while those people had previously voted in the adjoining precinct, this year they had to vote in our jurisdiction, because someone with more patience than I have made the legal distinction that where the bedrooms are in the house, rather than living rooms or other rooms are located, was the determining factor in assigning them to their voting precinct.  (Our head judge had gone to a further special training session as did other clerks or persons with his responsibility, in St. Cloud.)
By the time we worked through those several notations, and heard some of the highlights of the minutiae covered in the other training session above and beyond the head judge training I took, I can perfectly understand the kinds of challenges to proper versus improper voting that can occur, including people voting accidentally in the wrong precinct on some technical change.  I can see how some kinds of clerical errors could occur as well, but none of those would constitute errors that would invalidate an election, or constitute theft of an election, or any form of voter fraud, deception, or outright illegality.  I have a much better understanding now of exactly what kind of challenged voter registrations for previously registered voters or even same day voters can occur.
What I learned from my participation in a low turnout primary, but one that uses the same voter registration lists as the larger general election, and which operate in exactly the same way by the same rules and procedures in larger elections, is that we have very careful, accurate, and sometimes technically complicated by-the-rules elections.  What we don't have is voter fraud, or any election problem that would be improved by voter ID or the other very partisan changes that are being pushed on Minnesota.  What each of those changes would do is to harm the integrity of one voter / one vote elections, and would consistently and exclusively help Republicans by eliminating Democratic voters --- along with disenfranchising some Republican voters as well.

It doesn't particularly surprise me that a group that starts out with a preconceived assumption, and no particular qualification in training to interpret data or to understand proper scientific processes, like the Minnesota Majority and the other voter fraud promoting groups; they get their facts wrong. 

I would suggest anyone taking an objective view of their work first familiarize themselves with cognitive bias.  Here is a short list from the wikipedia entry for cognitive bias, which provides an excellent introduction to the topic:

Framing by using a too-narrow approach and description of the situation or issue.
Hindsight bias, sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, is the inclination to see past events as being predictable.
Fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions; this is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
Self-serving bias is the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests.
Belief bias is when one's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by their belief in the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

This list is only a partial one of cognitive bias; but as wikipedia noted, these are some of the most commonly studied, and therefore better documented examples of it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or some other kind of genius to understand that the organizations trying to find voter fraud in Minnesota are wrong, that they are not proficient or well trained, they are not authoritative in election law and election procedure, and that they are distorting data, and in some cases just plain making shit up, to try to support their claims, not because there is election fraud - there isn't.  I don't consider 1 in 15 million to be worth considering as election fraud.

But because they desperately want to believe there is, they will do anything to try to prove the non-existent.  These are the same people who tend to be birthers, tenthers, truthers, deathers, and all the other conspiracy theorists.  It wouldn't surprise me if the believed there were Aliens in area 51, that the moon landing was faked, or that they believed in Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, or that Elvis is still alive either.
Believing in voter fraud is that kind of crazy, wrong, factually inaccurate, and lacking in a basis in objective reality.  Sadly, that now makes it right wing, that now makes it a conservative ideology-driven delusion.
If you have any prayer of being taken seriously on the topic of voter fraud, do your homework on the subject, don't get your information from the lunatic fringe.  If you sincerely care about this country, if you want our elections to be honest, get corrupt money out -- and go vote, and go volunteer in your own community to be an election judge.  But don't disenfranchise others. Don't spend millions that could be better spent on much more legitimate issues like repairing bridges before they fall down.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.