It's been a few months since I wrote a blog post, but today I was sitting at the airport watching the news when I heard that Governor Haley Barbour has pardoned just under 200 criminals on his last day in office.
The number alone is alarming. But then we hear that at least 4 of the individuals pardoned were convicted murderers, one of whom killed his wife while she was holding their 6 week old son. The level of concern increased.
Most Americans who made it out of high school social studies classes know that act of pardoning a criminal can be and is performed by both the president and also the governors of each state. According to the USDOJ (that's the United States Department of Justice for those of you who are challenged by acronyms), the president can pardon federal crimes only, and all state crimes are to be pardoned by the governor of the appropriate state.
Now, as a citizen of this country who feels at least moderately protected and comforted by the idea that we have police forces and federal crime bureaus that hunt down criminals and punish or imprison them, the idea of pardoning criminals bothers me. But like many others, I had not really given it much thought until I heard about Gov. Barbour's recent pardons. I mean, yes, there are plenty of criminals wandering the streets that have not been caught and who probably never will be caught, but to let convicted and imprisoned criminals out early? To forgive them of their crimes? Is that something that our government officials should be allowed to do? Is that something any human should be allowed to do? I'm surprised that more Christians aren't jumping out of their seats about a non-god being able to forgive humans for their secular "sins".
Some who are aware of the pardon, or who are intimate with the Pardon Attorney (there's another government job that could be easily eliminated if this process was eradicated), know that there is at least a process to pardoning criminals. Convicted criminals must apply for a pardon, and they must wait 5 years since their most recent release from confinement, or since their most recent conviction if the sentence did not include confinement. But don't start feeling too warm and fuzzy and safe just yet--even that waiting period can be waived "in the most exceptional circumstances" (Office of the Pardon Attorney).
Unfortunately, in Mississippi (where Barbour was governor), "exceptional circumstances" are apparently defined as working in the governor's mansion doing odd jobs. Apparently it is a Mississippi tradition for the governor to pardon any criminal who worked in his mansion. Oh great, so if you can use a mop or clip a hedge, you're not a murderer anymore? I can tell you that relatives of the victims of these murders definitely do not share this sentiment, nor do they have any kind of appreciation for ol' fashioned Mississippi bureaucratic tradition.
Of course these pardons, including 5 murderers released in 2008, and the release of Ernest Scott Favre (yes, you recognize his last name) who killed his friend while driving drunk one night, have caused an uproar. Even the government is reacting. Democractic Representative David Baria is sponsoring two bills, one that requires a hearing to be held before a felon can be pardoned, and another that forbids convicted murderers from working in the governor's mansion as part of the prison trusty system program. But even these actions are only attempting to curb the pardoning privileges of the Mississippi governor.
One state down, 49 states and one nation to go until criminals remain criminals and cannot be pardoned on a whim.
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/governors-murder-pardons-prompts-call-to-curb-reprieves/1
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Legalizing Domestic Violence: An Atrocious Political Bargain
That's right. In Topeka, Kansas, city law no longer forbids domestic violence. If a man or a woman beats his or her child or spouse, it is not a crime. This legal move of course begs the question: why?
I'll tell you why: the city government is using the legalization of domestic violence as a budgetary bargaining chip. Essentially, the county in which Topeka is located, Shawnee County, could no longer afford to prosecute all of the domestic abuse cases. This inability forced the city of Topeka's government to take on the extra case load. In protest, the city legalized domestic violence, therefore shirking their responsibility for the cases, and placing the domestic violence case load back on Shawnee County.
Well, you may be thinking, at least the cases are still being handled by the county. Unfortunately, though, the Shawnee County legal system's cup has runneth over, which means that while domestic violence suspects are being arrested, they are not being charged, and are therefore being released. Since September 8, 2011, 21 suspects have been sent back home because Shawnee County couldn't squeeze in a court date. And Topeka city police won't even bother arresting anyone for domestic abuse, because in their city, punching your wife in the face isn't a crime anymore.
Which means that children who saw a parent dragged away in a police car--children who are finally starting to forget what it feels like to have a fat lip or a black eye or an arm with a bruise in the shape of a handprint-- are watching that same abusive parent walk right back in the front door, having been freed from their jail cell because the local government just didn't have the time or the money to prosecute a violent offender.
And it's all because of money. Domestic abuse victims are suffering at the hands of a greedy government, a government who sees its citizens not as human beings with feelings of fear and anxiety and despondence, but as pawns in an ongoing game to see which local government will be the first to throw in the towel.
And so we find ourselves faced with a question that, as a nation, we are asking more often than we should: Is this really the world that we live in?
If a local government in the Midwest is willing to legalize something as serious as domestic violence merely to make a point, what's next? Legalizing murder in New York City? Rape in Los Angeles? Kidnapping in DC?
If those speculations seem like an exaggeration, think again. Think about what it would be like to see your father throw your mother into the wall. Think about how it would feel to realize that as you crawl into the closet with the portable phone, preparing to dial 911, that even if you call the police, there would be nothing they could do but politely decline your call.
Sorry, sweetie. What you're describing isn't actually a crime. Good night.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/domestic-violence-topeka-kansas-.html
I'll tell you why: the city government is using the legalization of domestic violence as a budgetary bargaining chip. Essentially, the county in which Topeka is located, Shawnee County, could no longer afford to prosecute all of the domestic abuse cases. This inability forced the city of Topeka's government to take on the extra case load. In protest, the city legalized domestic violence, therefore shirking their responsibility for the cases, and placing the domestic violence case load back on Shawnee County.
Well, you may be thinking, at least the cases are still being handled by the county. Unfortunately, though, the Shawnee County legal system's cup has runneth over, which means that while domestic violence suspects are being arrested, they are not being charged, and are therefore being released. Since September 8, 2011, 21 suspects have been sent back home because Shawnee County couldn't squeeze in a court date. And Topeka city police won't even bother arresting anyone for domestic abuse, because in their city, punching your wife in the face isn't a crime anymore.
Which means that children who saw a parent dragged away in a police car--children who are finally starting to forget what it feels like to have a fat lip or a black eye or an arm with a bruise in the shape of a handprint-- are watching that same abusive parent walk right back in the front door, having been freed from their jail cell because the local government just didn't have the time or the money to prosecute a violent offender.
And it's all because of money. Domestic abuse victims are suffering at the hands of a greedy government, a government who sees its citizens not as human beings with feelings of fear and anxiety and despondence, but as pawns in an ongoing game to see which local government will be the first to throw in the towel.
And so we find ourselves faced with a question that, as a nation, we are asking more often than we should: Is this really the world that we live in?
If a local government in the Midwest is willing to legalize something as serious as domestic violence merely to make a point, what's next? Legalizing murder in New York City? Rape in Los Angeles? Kidnapping in DC?
If those speculations seem like an exaggeration, think again. Think about what it would be like to see your father throw your mother into the wall. Think about how it would feel to realize that as you crawl into the closet with the portable phone, preparing to dial 911, that even if you call the police, there would be nothing they could do but politely decline your call.
Sorry, sweetie. What you're describing isn't actually a crime. Good night.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/domestic-violence-topeka-kansas-.html
Thursday, September 1, 2011
"When I was a kid...": The Generation of Technological Revolution
At dinner tonight I was talking with my friend Kati about what it will be like to raise kids from a generation that is so technologically advanced. Granted, every generation goes through a lot of technological breakthroughs, but our generation took quite the large leap. As I plan to tell my children one day, "When I was a kid, we didn't even have the Internet!"
I mean, think about it. If you're anywhere from 20-30, you went from listening to cassette tapes to listening to MP3s. That's going from sitting in your room (or your parents' car) listening to 16 songs, tops (8 songs if you are too lazy to flip the tape over) to having access to about 20,000 songs on one device that is about the same size as a cassette tape. And those damn tapes were hard work. Want to listen to a song again? There's no quick touch of a button--you had to rewind! Don't have a fancy rewinding tape player? You better be able to jam your pinky finger into those little holes in the tape player and wind back that extremely sensitive magnetic tape. I mean of course we didn't go straight from cassette tapes to iPods. There was that fancy compact disc that some of us still use. We were still limited to about 16 songs, but at least you were able to pinpoint where they started and ended.
Now let's move on to the digital revolution of video. We all remember the VHS tape. Stored safely in a nice cardboard sleeve, or if it was a Disney video, your VHS came nestled in a big plastic case with brightly colored pictures and extra padding to protect the virtue of characters like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Pop in that video, and you had to fast-forward past the previews, and maybe even make some adjustments to the tracking so that you didn't have weird fuzzy stripes floating across your screen for an hour and a half. And if you rented from Blockbuster (remember Blockbuster?), you had to actually rewind the video in order to return it. "Be kind, rewind!" There was no skipping to certain scenes! Bonus features?! Puh-lease. The bonus was pulling that VHS tape out of the sleeve and realizing you didn't have to rewind it for 15 minutes before enjoying your feature film. And forget about subtitles or skipping to certain scenes. Hard of hearing? Turn up the volume. Want to skip to your favorite part? You better be willing to search around for 20 minutes. And let's not forget about the Laser Disc. You know, the huge DVD. Maybe you watched educational movies on this digital media in middle school or high school. If you personally owned one, you probably don't want to admit it. Then of course, we made the leap to the lil' laser disc aka the DVD. Digital Video Disc. Brilliant. No rewinding, unless you wanted to. You can watch your movie in English, in captioned English, in French, in Spanish. Find your scene easily by switching through tiny pictures of the actual movie! And now, you don't even have to go to the store to rent a DVD. You can order DVDs online and have them mailed to your house, or rent them from a vending machine!
And then of course there are video games. Always having to sit a little too close to the TV so that your controller could stay plugged into the Super Nintendo, the N64, the Atari if you're on the more vintage end of things. Having to take the game cartridge out and physically blow the dust out of it to keep it from shorting out in the console. And remember those massive memory packs? Like a USB drive for your controller, but 6 times as large and about 1/10 of the capacity, if that. And then the Rumble Paks! So you can really feel like you're in the game, which you're probably playing on a 15-inch cathode ray tube television in your basement. Nowadays you barely need a controller. You just dance around in front of the game console and it actually detects your movements and then accurately interprets them into virtual motion! No more jumping up and down in a pixelated 2-D environment. You're a real virtual person now. Your game has depth.
So as I sit here, typing on my lap top computer and reminiscing about Windows 95 and games like Treasure Mountain, thinking about how when I wanted to know something in elementary school, I had to look it up in a book, a paper book, I fantasize about forcing my kids to relive the ancient days of cassette tapes, Sony Walkmen, VCRs, and Sega Dreamcasts--about making them truly grateful for what they have. But then I think about how I still listen to vinyl records, read paper books, and capture photos on film, and I think to myself, in 10 years, kids will probably refer to cassette tapes and CDs as vintage and actually think they're "cool". So, when you're cleaning out your basement, or your apartment, and you come upon a cassette tape or a VCR, think about keeping it. Because one day your kids will be curious, and let's be honest--unless you have physical evidence, they'll never believe what you had to go through to listen to your favorite song or watch a movie. And having to google "Playstation" as proof--well that's just embarrassing.
I mean, think about it. If you're anywhere from 20-30, you went from listening to cassette tapes to listening to MP3s. That's going from sitting in your room (or your parents' car) listening to 16 songs, tops (8 songs if you are too lazy to flip the tape over) to having access to about 20,000 songs on one device that is about the same size as a cassette tape. And those damn tapes were hard work. Want to listen to a song again? There's no quick touch of a button--you had to rewind! Don't have a fancy rewinding tape player? You better be able to jam your pinky finger into those little holes in the tape player and wind back that extremely sensitive magnetic tape. I mean of course we didn't go straight from cassette tapes to iPods. There was that fancy compact disc that some of us still use. We were still limited to about 16 songs, but at least you were able to pinpoint where they started and ended.
Now let's move on to the digital revolution of video. We all remember the VHS tape. Stored safely in a nice cardboard sleeve, or if it was a Disney video, your VHS came nestled in a big plastic case with brightly colored pictures and extra padding to protect the virtue of characters like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Pop in that video, and you had to fast-forward past the previews, and maybe even make some adjustments to the tracking so that you didn't have weird fuzzy stripes floating across your screen for an hour and a half. And if you rented from Blockbuster (remember Blockbuster?), you had to actually rewind the video in order to return it. "Be kind, rewind!" There was no skipping to certain scenes! Bonus features?! Puh-lease. The bonus was pulling that VHS tape out of the sleeve and realizing you didn't have to rewind it for 15 minutes before enjoying your feature film. And forget about subtitles or skipping to certain scenes. Hard of hearing? Turn up the volume. Want to skip to your favorite part? You better be willing to search around for 20 minutes. And let's not forget about the Laser Disc. You know, the huge DVD. Maybe you watched educational movies on this digital media in middle school or high school. If you personally owned one, you probably don't want to admit it. Then of course, we made the leap to the lil' laser disc aka the DVD. Digital Video Disc. Brilliant. No rewinding, unless you wanted to. You can watch your movie in English, in captioned English, in French, in Spanish. Find your scene easily by switching through tiny pictures of the actual movie! And now, you don't even have to go to the store to rent a DVD. You can order DVDs online and have them mailed to your house, or rent them from a vending machine!
And then of course there are video games. Always having to sit a little too close to the TV so that your controller could stay plugged into the Super Nintendo, the N64, the Atari if you're on the more vintage end of things. Having to take the game cartridge out and physically blow the dust out of it to keep it from shorting out in the console. And remember those massive memory packs? Like a USB drive for your controller, but 6 times as large and about 1/10 of the capacity, if that. And then the Rumble Paks! So you can really feel like you're in the game, which you're probably playing on a 15-inch cathode ray tube television in your basement. Nowadays you barely need a controller. You just dance around in front of the game console and it actually detects your movements and then accurately interprets them into virtual motion! No more jumping up and down in a pixelated 2-D environment. You're a real virtual person now. Your game has depth.
So as I sit here, typing on my lap top computer and reminiscing about Windows 95 and games like Treasure Mountain, thinking about how when I wanted to know something in elementary school, I had to look it up in a book, a paper book, I fantasize about forcing my kids to relive the ancient days of cassette tapes, Sony Walkmen, VCRs, and Sega Dreamcasts--about making them truly grateful for what they have. But then I think about how I still listen to vinyl records, read paper books, and capture photos on film, and I think to myself, in 10 years, kids will probably refer to cassette tapes and CDs as vintage and actually think they're "cool". So, when you're cleaning out your basement, or your apartment, and you come upon a cassette tape or a VCR, think about keeping it. Because one day your kids will be curious, and let's be honest--unless you have physical evidence, they'll never believe what you had to go through to listen to your favorite song or watch a movie. And having to google "Playstation" as proof--well that's just embarrassing.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Drink Wine, Prevent Pregnancy, and Raise the National Debt Ceiling!
All in one easy blog post!
Let's get this first topic out of the way. According to a Spanish study, red wine is the new sunblock! Okay so it's not as foolproof as slathering yourself in SPF 30, but apparently chemicals found in red wine (and the grapes from which it is made) prevent some of the chemical changes in the body that cause sun damage. This has the potential to turn a family vacation at the beach into one of two things: a really great time or a complete disaster.
Moving right along, let's get to the surprisingly controversial topic of birth control. This week, the Obama administration declared that private insurers will be required to cover the cost of women's health screenings and birth control starting January 2013. Personally, I think this is a great idea. We all know that there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies occurring every year, many of which could be prevented if women (and families) were able to afford a monthly dose of birth control.
Now, of course there are people and organizations who are against the idea of no-cost birth control. But as with most situations similar to this one, the arguments that these antagonists are putting forth make almost no sense. Let me lay them out for you (let's use Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as an example):
1) "Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated."
2) "These mandates are an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and personal conscience."
First of all, birth control does not treat pregnancy. It prevents it. Not even the morning-after pill (which will
also be covered by private insurers) treats pregnancy. It is merely a dose of hormones which, frankly, does not work at all if you are already pregnant. The abortion pill will not be covered.
Second of all, giving women the opportunity to obtain no-cost birth control is not an affront to the freedom of religion and conscience! Women who were uncomfortable with using birth control or who were against birth control for religious reasons are not going to go out and obtain a prescription for it just because it is now completely covered by their insurance policy. I know it sounds crazy, but people will still be able to practice whatever religion they want, despite this new mandate. It's birth control, not the anti-Christ!
Why is it so awful for women who do not want a child to prevent pregnancy? Would these protesters prefer that these unwanted children be aborted, put into a foster home, or raised by parents who did not want children?
As a result, there is a provision of this mandate that says that religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be able to opt out of the mandate that covers birth control. So, wait, are those religious organizations going to pay to support those unwanted children, or will that burden fall on the government, the organization that wanted to cover preventative drugs in the first place? Hmm. Something to think about.
Speaking of the government paying for things, the government finally reached a decision about the national debt! Obama said that he promises to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years if Congress agrees to raise the national debt ceiling by about that same amount for the next 2 years. First, let me help you wrap your head around $2.1 trillion. Let's say you make $40,000 per year. Now let's say you save every single penny and never have to pay taxes. Every year, you put exactly $40,000 in your savings account. Not accounting for interest you would earn on that money, how long will it take you to save $2.1 trillion?
52,500,000 years. Yes, you're reading correctly. That's fifty-two million years. So that's how much $2.1 trillion is.
So Obama has promised to cut spending by that much over the next 10 years. Which I find fascinating because at the very most he will be president for only 4 more years. Is he planning to cut spending from his basement after his potential second term is up? Does he plan to somehow still have control over our government and its spending for the next decade? Because he sure hasn't had any visible control over it for the past 4 years.
Not to mention, what's our national debt at right now? About 14 trillion? So Congress raises the debt ceiling by 2.1 trillion. So we're up to a whopping $16.1 trillion. But Obama cuts spending by $2.1 trillion. Which leaves us...oh. Back at $14 trillion. Is this progress?!
I give up. Get the red wine. I'll meet you at the beach.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20086913-10391704.html http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190484/20110801/insurers-to-pay-for-women-s-health-screenings-and-birth-control.htm
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Opinion+debt+situation+defines+dysfunctional+government/5195497/story.html
Let's get this first topic out of the way. According to a Spanish study, red wine is the new sunblock! Okay so it's not as foolproof as slathering yourself in SPF 30, but apparently chemicals found in red wine (and the grapes from which it is made) prevent some of the chemical changes in the body that cause sun damage. This has the potential to turn a family vacation at the beach into one of two things: a really great time or a complete disaster.
Moving right along, let's get to the surprisingly controversial topic of birth control. This week, the Obama administration declared that private insurers will be required to cover the cost of women's health screenings and birth control starting January 2013. Personally, I think this is a great idea. We all know that there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies occurring every year, many of which could be prevented if women (and families) were able to afford a monthly dose of birth control.
Now, of course there are people and organizations who are against the idea of no-cost birth control. But as with most situations similar to this one, the arguments that these antagonists are putting forth make almost no sense. Let me lay them out for you (let's use Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as an example):
1) "Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated."
2) "These mandates are an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and personal conscience."
First of all, birth control does not treat pregnancy. It prevents it. Not even the morning-after pill (which will
also be covered by private insurers) treats pregnancy. It is merely a dose of hormones which, frankly, does not work at all if you are already pregnant. The abortion pill will not be covered.
Second of all, giving women the opportunity to obtain no-cost birth control is not an affront to the freedom of religion and conscience! Women who were uncomfortable with using birth control or who were against birth control for religious reasons are not going to go out and obtain a prescription for it just because it is now completely covered by their insurance policy. I know it sounds crazy, but people will still be able to practice whatever religion they want, despite this new mandate. It's birth control, not the anti-Christ!
Why is it so awful for women who do not want a child to prevent pregnancy? Would these protesters prefer that these unwanted children be aborted, put into a foster home, or raised by parents who did not want children?
As a result, there is a provision of this mandate that says that religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be able to opt out of the mandate that covers birth control. So, wait, are those religious organizations going to pay to support those unwanted children, or will that burden fall on the government, the organization that wanted to cover preventative drugs in the first place? Hmm. Something to think about.
Speaking of the government paying for things, the government finally reached a decision about the national debt! Obama said that he promises to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years if Congress agrees to raise the national debt ceiling by about that same amount for the next 2 years. First, let me help you wrap your head around $2.1 trillion. Let's say you make $40,000 per year. Now let's say you save every single penny and never have to pay taxes. Every year, you put exactly $40,000 in your savings account. Not accounting for interest you would earn on that money, how long will it take you to save $2.1 trillion?
52,500,000 years. Yes, you're reading correctly. That's fifty-two million years. So that's how much $2.1 trillion is.
So Obama has promised to cut spending by that much over the next 10 years. Which I find fascinating because at the very most he will be president for only 4 more years. Is he planning to cut spending from his basement after his potential second term is up? Does he plan to somehow still have control over our government and its spending for the next decade? Because he sure hasn't had any visible control over it for the past 4 years.
Not to mention, what's our national debt at right now? About 14 trillion? So Congress raises the debt ceiling by 2.1 trillion. So we're up to a whopping $16.1 trillion. But Obama cuts spending by $2.1 trillion. Which leaves us...oh. Back at $14 trillion. Is this progress?!
I give up. Get the red wine. I'll meet you at the beach.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20086913-10391704.html http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190484/20110801/insurers-to-pay-for-women-s-health-screenings-and-birth-control.htm
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Opinion+debt+situation+defines+dysfunctional+government/5195497/story.html
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Marriage Vow--A Disaster for Human Rights
I am pissed.
If you haven't seen the news lately, you'll be interested to know that both Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently signed a document referred to as the Marriage Vow. It's basically a Christian-based promise for political candidates to keep marriage between a man and a woman--but it's so much worse than that. The entire 4-page document is an atrocity, but I'm going to touch on three main pain points: black people, gay people, and divorce, all of which are grossly misrepresented by the narrow-minded authors and signatories of this document.
It starts by claiming that "the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis" and supports this first and foremost by saying that African-American children born into slavery were more likely to be raised by a married mother and father than African-American children born today. I quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
That may be true. But sadly a child born into slavery was also born into slavery. His or her parents were slaves, and that child was a slave, forced to work in terrible conditions for no pay and was deprived of nearly all human rights. To compare that in any way to an African-American child born today is ludicrous. So what if you're born to a single parent? Even if you're born into poverty and have to struggle your whole life, at least it's your life and not something that can be bought by another human being and used in whatever way your "master" sees fit. Obviously this statement from the Marriage Vow was not well-received.
But the authors of the Marriage Vow do not stop at disgracing black people. They then move on to severely misrepresenting gay people as well. The Vow's main goal is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which of course excludes same-sex marriage in all forms. It claims that there is no scientific proof that "non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricalevidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I barely even want to talk about that first point. Really? Still using that argument? That people choose to be gay? Yes, one day, a person just wakes up and decides that they are going to choose who they love, who they are attracted to. And then, my favorite part, where they group sexual promiscuity and homosexuality together, as if they are one and the same. Breaking news people, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're giving it away to everyone you meet. And yes there is certainly no scientific proof that homosexuality improves public health, but there certainly isn't any proof that it has a negative impact on public health either. Gay people did not spread HIV, if that's the thought that pops into your head. Ignorant people of all orientations who had no concept of venereal disease spread HIV.
This lovely document also groups bisexuality, homosexuality and anal sex in with adultery, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex. Ok so wait a minute, why does sexual preference have to be listed in the same series as sexual deviance? They act like being gay or having anal sex is some kind of gateway to having multiple wives and husbands and cheating on your spouse. Um, no, that's not how it works, actually. Gay people and straight people are equally likely to commit adultery and extramarital sex acts. These choices aren't based on your sexual orientation (which as you remember from above, is also not a choice), it's based on the kind of person you are and your view of what is right and what is wrong.
And now let's get to the last part: divorce. I was shocked when I read the claim that "children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy." What about children raised by a mother and father who are living together but completely unloving toward their child, or even abusive? What about children raised by parents who scream at each other all day and all night and never exhibit love toward each other? Is that better than being raised by a single parent who loves their child unconditionally? Or by two parents, who living separately, love their child unconditionally?
My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and sure, it may have been rough at times, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. My parents just didn't get along. The life that I have lived, being raised by two separate parents living in two separate households, has been phenomenally better than the life I would have lived had my parents decided to stick it out. Everyone knows what it's like to hear their parents fight--it gives you that horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach, and you just want to lock yourself in your room and wait for it to be over. Imagine spending your entire childhood and adolescence like that.
So now the Marriage Vow is trying to tell me that if my parents had stayed together, fought constantly, and raised me in a household filled with tension and anger, that I would have had a better life? Well last time I checked, I exceled in school, I stayed away from drugs, never got into trouble with the law, and managed to avoid getting pregnant. And my parents, by getting a divorce, were able to better show me what love could be than if they had stayed together.
At this point, the Marriage Vow has managed to insult just about every person under the sun and still (!) our potential leaders are insisting on signing it, writing their names on a neat little line over which is printed "So help us God." If there is a god that is going to help a political leader achieve legal segregation and alienation of a group of people because of who they love or because of their non-nuclear family structure, then that is not a god that deserves followers, and this is not a country we want to live in.
So let's fight to keep our country headed toward equal rights for all, and refuse to vote for any political candidate who has signed a document that promises to rob American citizens of their rights as people. If you need more fuel for your fire, read the full text of the Marriage Vow now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/read-the-marriage-vow-pledge-signed-by-michele-bachmann-and-rick-santorum/2011/07/08/gIQAwT7K4H_blog.html
If you haven't seen the news lately, you'll be interested to know that both Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently signed a document referred to as the Marriage Vow. It's basically a Christian-based promise for political candidates to keep marriage between a man and a woman--but it's so much worse than that. The entire 4-page document is an atrocity, but I'm going to touch on three main pain points: black people, gay people, and divorce, all of which are grossly misrepresented by the narrow-minded authors and signatories of this document.
It starts by claiming that "the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis" and supports this first and foremost by saying that African-American children born into slavery were more likely to be raised by a married mother and father than African-American children born today. I quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
That may be true. But sadly a child born into slavery was also born into slavery. His or her parents were slaves, and that child was a slave, forced to work in terrible conditions for no pay and was deprived of nearly all human rights. To compare that in any way to an African-American child born today is ludicrous. So what if you're born to a single parent? Even if you're born into poverty and have to struggle your whole life, at least it's your life and not something that can be bought by another human being and used in whatever way your "master" sees fit. Obviously this statement from the Marriage Vow was not well-received.
But the authors of the Marriage Vow do not stop at disgracing black people. They then move on to severely misrepresenting gay people as well. The Vow's main goal is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which of course excludes same-sex marriage in all forms. It claims that there is no scientific proof that "non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricalevidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I barely even want to talk about that first point. Really? Still using that argument? That people choose to be gay? Yes, one day, a person just wakes up and decides that they are going to choose who they love, who they are attracted to. And then, my favorite part, where they group sexual promiscuity and homosexuality together, as if they are one and the same. Breaking news people, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're giving it away to everyone you meet. And yes there is certainly no scientific proof that homosexuality improves public health, but there certainly isn't any proof that it has a negative impact on public health either. Gay people did not spread HIV, if that's the thought that pops into your head. Ignorant people of all orientations who had no concept of venereal disease spread HIV.
This lovely document also groups bisexuality, homosexuality and anal sex in with adultery, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex. Ok so wait a minute, why does sexual preference have to be listed in the same series as sexual deviance? They act like being gay or having anal sex is some kind of gateway to having multiple wives and husbands and cheating on your spouse. Um, no, that's not how it works, actually. Gay people and straight people are equally likely to commit adultery and extramarital sex acts. These choices aren't based on your sexual orientation (which as you remember from above, is also not a choice), it's based on the kind of person you are and your view of what is right and what is wrong.
And now let's get to the last part: divorce. I was shocked when I read the claim that "children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy." What about children raised by a mother and father who are living together but completely unloving toward their child, or even abusive? What about children raised by parents who scream at each other all day and all night and never exhibit love toward each other? Is that better than being raised by a single parent who loves their child unconditionally? Or by two parents, who living separately, love their child unconditionally?
My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and sure, it may have been rough at times, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. My parents just didn't get along. The life that I have lived, being raised by two separate parents living in two separate households, has been phenomenally better than the life I would have lived had my parents decided to stick it out. Everyone knows what it's like to hear their parents fight--it gives you that horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach, and you just want to lock yourself in your room and wait for it to be over. Imagine spending your entire childhood and adolescence like that.
So now the Marriage Vow is trying to tell me that if my parents had stayed together, fought constantly, and raised me in a household filled with tension and anger, that I would have had a better life? Well last time I checked, I exceled in school, I stayed away from drugs, never got into trouble with the law, and managed to avoid getting pregnant. And my parents, by getting a divorce, were able to better show me what love could be than if they had stayed together.
At this point, the Marriage Vow has managed to insult just about every person under the sun and still (!) our potential leaders are insisting on signing it, writing their names on a neat little line over which is printed "So help us God." If there is a god that is going to help a political leader achieve legal segregation and alienation of a group of people because of who they love or because of their non-nuclear family structure, then that is not a god that deserves followers, and this is not a country we want to live in.
So let's fight to keep our country headed toward equal rights for all, and refuse to vote for any political candidate who has signed a document that promises to rob American citizens of their rights as people. If you need more fuel for your fire, read the full text of the Marriage Vow now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/read-the-marriage-vow-pledge-signed-by-michele-bachmann-and-rick-santorum/2011/07/08/gIQAwT7K4H_blog.html
Monday, July 11, 2011
Nothing is free--not even a Slurpee
That's right. Did you really think I was going to let something like "Free Slurpee Day at 7-Eleven" just slide by unnoticed? Please.
Like I've been saying all along, nothing is free! Even booming convenience store chain 7-Eleven is willing to admit it, on the day that it claims to give out "free" Slurpees no less. That's right, to celebrate the "birthday" of the chain, they gave out "free" 7.11 ounce Slurpees. Cute.
But here's the thing. Those little Slurpees that people flocked from all over to try actually promoted increased Slurpee sales by almost 40%. I mean come on. It's like giving someone one free and delicious chip and then being surprised that they bought a whole bag. People marched into their local 7-Elevens, took one brain-freezing gulp of that liquid popsicle and just had to have more.
Plus, they bought other stuff too. Think about it. You drink a tiny Slurpee, you see a candy bar out of the corner of your eye, then maybe a Gatorade looks at you in just the right way...before you know it, you've bought an entire "Thank you for shopping" plastic bag of goodies. And you probably wouldn't have even stepped in to 7-Eleven that day if they hadn't been giving out "free" Slurpees.
It happens every day! How many times do you go to the store and buy something just because it's on sale? Oooh, strawberries are buy one get one free! Well breaking news, you have to BUY one to get the other one for "free". Therefore, you have spent money. You still technically paid for both strawberry buckets. Maybe you wouldn't have even bought strawberries if they weren't featured in some "BOGO" deal.
-What about library books? They're free.
-Nope. Taxes. Not to mention late fees.
-I got a free keychain when I bought this DVD.
-The price of the keychain was included in the DVD, for which you are most likely already overpaying.
-I found $20 on the ground. Free money!
-Well, not exactly. Just because you aren't paying for it doesn't mean it's free. Someone lost that $20 and therefore paid a price. Plus if you have a conscience, you'll feel guilty. That's a price too.
The point is, when a company advertises something as "free", they're not doing it to be nice. They're doing it because they know it will draw you in with thoughts of legally stealing and one-upping a corporation--of getting your "money's worth". And it works. It feels good to get two things for the price of one (even if the price of one thing is overinflated to account for the price of both)! Or to have someone give you something without asking for anything in return (at least not right that second). But just remember: everyone pays for everything. Even if it isn't in dollars and cents, everything comes at a cost.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-10-free-711-slurpees_n.htm
Like I've been saying all along, nothing is free! Even booming convenience store chain 7-Eleven is willing to admit it, on the day that it claims to give out "free" Slurpees no less. That's right, to celebrate the "birthday" of the chain, they gave out "free" 7.11 ounce Slurpees. Cute.
But here's the thing. Those little Slurpees that people flocked from all over to try actually promoted increased Slurpee sales by almost 40%. I mean come on. It's like giving someone one free and delicious chip and then being surprised that they bought a whole bag. People marched into their local 7-Elevens, took one brain-freezing gulp of that liquid popsicle and just had to have more.
Plus, they bought other stuff too. Think about it. You drink a tiny Slurpee, you see a candy bar out of the corner of your eye, then maybe a Gatorade looks at you in just the right way...before you know it, you've bought an entire "Thank you for shopping" plastic bag of goodies. And you probably wouldn't have even stepped in to 7-Eleven that day if they hadn't been giving out "free" Slurpees.
It happens every day! How many times do you go to the store and buy something just because it's on sale? Oooh, strawberries are buy one get one free! Well breaking news, you have to BUY one to get the other one for "free". Therefore, you have spent money. You still technically paid for both strawberry buckets. Maybe you wouldn't have even bought strawberries if they weren't featured in some "BOGO" deal.
-What about library books? They're free.
-Nope. Taxes. Not to mention late fees.
-I got a free keychain when I bought this DVD.
-The price of the keychain was included in the DVD, for which you are most likely already overpaying.
-I found $20 on the ground. Free money!
-Well, not exactly. Just because you aren't paying for it doesn't mean it's free. Someone lost that $20 and therefore paid a price. Plus if you have a conscience, you'll feel guilty. That's a price too.
The point is, when a company advertises something as "free", they're not doing it to be nice. They're doing it because they know it will draw you in with thoughts of legally stealing and one-upping a corporation--of getting your "money's worth". And it works. It feels good to get two things for the price of one (even if the price of one thing is overinflated to account for the price of both)! Or to have someone give you something without asking for anything in return (at least not right that second). But just remember: everyone pays for everything. Even if it isn't in dollars and cents, everything comes at a cost.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-10-free-711-slurpees_n.htm
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Same story, different day
I'm talking about our government here, people.
Obama stands at his podium yelling at Republicans to stop cutting taxes for the uber-wealthy while reminding Congresspeople that they need to "stay put" in order to get things done. Oh, coming to work. What a revolutionary idea. But see, when you work for Congress, showing up to work is a lot like going to church. Just because you show up doesn't mean you're actually making any kind of effort to better yourself or those around you. Our country's political parties have become so divided that Congresspeople are more worried about the personal agendas of their own parties than the good of the American people and our country. So unless they come to work and make some compromises which result in beneficial decisions, there's really no point in getting out of bed.
In other news, Obama claims to be finally beginning the Afghanistan troop withdrawal he's promised us since...his campaign. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has appointed a new leader (who is probably pissed at us) and Afghan security guards are grabbing their guns and running for cover while Afghan militants bomb a hotel in Kabul. So...no, I wouldn't say we've put Afghanistan in a position to successfully continue without us. Not to mention, the Wall Street Journal reported today (rather obviously) that Al Qaeda still remains a top threat to the US "despite the death of Osama bin Laden." Wait, you mean killing one person doesn't result in the complete destruction of an entire terrorist group and its mentalities? In fact, in might even make that group more angry at the United States? Oh. Shit.
But that's okay, if you're disheartened by our current president's leadership tactics, fear not. Soon you will be able to vote for a new president. Someone like Michele Bachmann who not only has trouble differentiating between John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy (wait, which one was the Western star and which one was the serial child rapist and murderer?) but who also plans to add an amendment to the Constitution that federally bans gay marriage. Poor Michele. We're trying to evolve as a people, not turn back into ignorant cave monkeys (did monkeys live in caves?)! Although I suppose she's really more of a Creationist judging by how much she mentions her god and her bible and how that winning combination is going to help her run our country. Perhaps when she was brushing up on her high school history, she passed over the chapter that talked about how the United States is a secular country. Must have been the same chapter that discussed slavery, considering she announced that the founding fathers were the men who helped to end slavery in the United States. Hmm...couple decades behind there, Michele.
I still hold hope that someday a capable person will run our country. I use the word "someday" loosely.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obamas-scolding-republicans-inflames-debt-talks/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/29c7b936-a286-11e0-9760-00144feabdc0.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576416191709848746.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-kicks-off-campaign-but-john-wayne-gacy-gaffe-mars-speech/2011/06/27/AGDYNjpH_story.html
Obama stands at his podium yelling at Republicans to stop cutting taxes for the uber-wealthy while reminding Congresspeople that they need to "stay put" in order to get things done. Oh, coming to work. What a revolutionary idea. But see, when you work for Congress, showing up to work is a lot like going to church. Just because you show up doesn't mean you're actually making any kind of effort to better yourself or those around you. Our country's political parties have become so divided that Congresspeople are more worried about the personal agendas of their own parties than the good of the American people and our country. So unless they come to work and make some compromises which result in beneficial decisions, there's really no point in getting out of bed.
In other news, Obama claims to be finally beginning the Afghanistan troop withdrawal he's promised us since...his campaign. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has appointed a new leader (who is probably pissed at us) and Afghan security guards are grabbing their guns and running for cover while Afghan militants bomb a hotel in Kabul. So...no, I wouldn't say we've put Afghanistan in a position to successfully continue without us. Not to mention, the Wall Street Journal reported today (rather obviously) that Al Qaeda still remains a top threat to the US "despite the death of Osama bin Laden." Wait, you mean killing one person doesn't result in the complete destruction of an entire terrorist group and its mentalities? In fact, in might even make that group more angry at the United States? Oh. Shit.
But that's okay, if you're disheartened by our current president's leadership tactics, fear not. Soon you will be able to vote for a new president. Someone like Michele Bachmann who not only has trouble differentiating between John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy (wait, which one was the Western star and which one was the serial child rapist and murderer?) but who also plans to add an amendment to the Constitution that federally bans gay marriage. Poor Michele. We're trying to evolve as a people, not turn back into ignorant cave monkeys (did monkeys live in caves?)! Although I suppose she's really more of a Creationist judging by how much she mentions her god and her bible and how that winning combination is going to help her run our country. Perhaps when she was brushing up on her high school history, she passed over the chapter that talked about how the United States is a secular country. Must have been the same chapter that discussed slavery, considering she announced that the founding fathers were the men who helped to end slavery in the United States. Hmm...couple decades behind there, Michele.
I still hold hope that someday a capable person will run our country. I use the word "someday" loosely.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obamas-scolding-republicans-inflames-debt-talks/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/29c7b936-a286-11e0-9760-00144feabdc0.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576416191709848746.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-kicks-off-campaign-but-john-wayne-gacy-gaffe-mars-speech/2011/06/27/AGDYNjpH_story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)