“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the
CIA. I will speak until I can no
longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is
sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that
your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be
killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a
crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court, that Americans
could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in
Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is
something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”
This quote is taken from the ongoing filibuster of Senator Rand Paul that is taking place as I type. I must first applaud Senator Paul for doing a filibuster properly and standing, continually holding the senate floor as long as he can. This is a rarity in our modern government and a symbol iconically portrayed in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The issue at hand is the confirmation of John Brennan as the head of the CIA and, the deeper issue, drone strikes on US soil.
Over the last year we have heard more and more about the US's use of drone strikes. We first heard of drone strikes as an overseas tactic against foreign terrorists. It was then expanded to include the possibility of drone strikes on US citizens overseas. Most recently it has been brought to the public's attention that policies allow for the use of drones on US soil and against US citizens suspected of terrorism.
When Rand Paul asked President Obama "Can you kill an American on American
soil?" The President's answer was not the obvious "no" but Rand Paul quotes him as responding "I haven’t killed anyone yet... And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might."
I wish to remind our President that, although he may have no intention of using drone strikes against American citizens, he is setting a precedent for all who follow after him. This undermining of American liberties must stop. We must be proactive in our protection of American liberties not just from the current administration but for all future generations.
Read more Rand Paul's Filibuster here:
ABC News
New York Times
Huffington Post
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
On the Lighter Side- Cancer
Recently I have become aware of a site that lists "Known and Probably Human Carcinogens". I had to check it out and what I found was both amusing and disturbing. To make this more understandable, there are two ways that carcinogens are ranked. Those systems and their ranking systems are:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer:
Group 1
Alcoholic beverages
Coke production (I'm assuming they mean the drug but my first thought was for the drink)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives
Leather dust
Mineral oils
Nickel compounds
Salted fish (Chinese style)
Infection with flat worms
Wood dust
Environmental tobacco smoke
Estrogens
Neutrons
Solar radiation
Group 2a
Manufacture of art glass, glass containers, and press ware
Creosotes (i.e. the residue from burning wood and other substances)
Frying
Mate hot (i.e. a type of tea)
Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption (i.e. messes with your sleep schedule)
Glass wool fibers
Nickel
Progesterone (a natural pregnancy hormone)
Do these items cause or are likely to cause cancer? Maybe.
Should we walk around being afraid and avoiding all contact with these items? Not a chance.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer:
- Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
- Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
- Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
- Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
- Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans
- Group A: Carcinogenic to humans
- Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
- Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
- Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
- Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Group 1
Alcoholic beverages
Coke production (I'm assuming they mean the drug but my first thought was for the drink)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives
Leather dust
Mineral oils
Nickel compounds
Salted fish (Chinese style)
Infection with flat worms
Wood dust
Environmental tobacco smoke
Estrogens
Neutrons
Solar radiation
Group 2a
Manufacture of art glass, glass containers, and press ware
Creosotes (i.e. the residue from burning wood and other substances)
Frying
Mate hot (i.e. a type of tea)
Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption (i.e. messes with your sleep schedule)
Glass wool fibers
Nickel
Progesterone (a natural pregnancy hormone)
Do these items cause or are likely to cause cancer? Maybe.
Should we walk around being afraid and avoiding all contact with these items? Not a chance.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Are HOAs Discriminatory... You Decide
Homeowner's Associations are an enigma in my mind and always have been. We live in a society already governed by laws and rules in so many forms and yet people choose to constrain themselves under yet another set. My recent conversation with a coworker (see my previous posting here) has led me to a deeper examination of these organizations and a drive to answer the question: "Are Homeowner's Associations discriminatory?"
For those who do not know what a homeowner's association (hereafter referred to as HOAs) is, here is a quick run down... An HOA is born when a neighborhood of homeowners comes together and agree to a certain set of rules by which they all agree to live. Generally these rules are established in order for the homeowners to maintain a peaceful enjoyment of their property as well as preserving their property values by ensuring the quality of the neighborhood is maintained. Some common rules include keeping your lawn mowed, getting your exterior paint color approved before painting, and no tin foil in your windows. Not only do ALL homeowners have to agree to this association, but when new residents move in they also have a responsibility to sign on and agree to the same rules. Of course these rules are not unchangeable, there are elected officials from among the residents and plenty of voting and challenging of the rules, but that is the overall lay of the land where HOAs are concerned.
At first glance anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the civil rights movement can see how this concept goes bad quickly. In the 60s and before there were rules that created "white" neighborhoods and "black" neighborhoods. It was another extension of segregation and discrimination, and a very effective one at that.
This brings up a very important point... How were these organizations allowed to continue and in some areas thrive if they were discriminatory?
The answer is simply that they don't have to be a method of discrimination. As long as the rules are not prejudicial against any protected class and are enforced equally among all classes they are perfectly legal. For the record there are 7 federally protected classes which are: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. Some states and even counties have added their own additional classes but I doubt any of them include lawn length or house color (though our nation does have some rather ridiculous laws). As long as the nuclear white Christian family is cited for leaving their trash cans out alongside the black Islamic single mother, the Korean elderly couple, and the interracial gay couple it is perfectly legal. If there is even a suspicion of discrimination it can be brought before the courts to determine whether or not discrimination has really occurred.
That really about sums it up. We cannot see discrimination in every organization and still claim to be moving towards equality. But maybe I'm just incapable of seeing discrimination the way my coworker seems to believe. You decide...
For those who do not know what a homeowner's association (hereafter referred to as HOAs) is, here is a quick run down... An HOA is born when a neighborhood of homeowners comes together and agree to a certain set of rules by which they all agree to live. Generally these rules are established in order for the homeowners to maintain a peaceful enjoyment of their property as well as preserving their property values by ensuring the quality of the neighborhood is maintained. Some common rules include keeping your lawn mowed, getting your exterior paint color approved before painting, and no tin foil in your windows. Not only do ALL homeowners have to agree to this association, but when new residents move in they also have a responsibility to sign on and agree to the same rules. Of course these rules are not unchangeable, there are elected officials from among the residents and plenty of voting and challenging of the rules, but that is the overall lay of the land where HOAs are concerned.
At first glance anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the civil rights movement can see how this concept goes bad quickly. In the 60s and before there were rules that created "white" neighborhoods and "black" neighborhoods. It was another extension of segregation and discrimination, and a very effective one at that.
This brings up a very important point... How were these organizations allowed to continue and in some areas thrive if they were discriminatory?
The answer is simply that they don't have to be a method of discrimination. As long as the rules are not prejudicial against any protected class and are enforced equally among all classes they are perfectly legal. For the record there are 7 federally protected classes which are: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. Some states and even counties have added their own additional classes but I doubt any of them include lawn length or house color (though our nation does have some rather ridiculous laws). As long as the nuclear white Christian family is cited for leaving their trash cans out alongside the black Islamic single mother, the Korean elderly couple, and the interracial gay couple it is perfectly legal. If there is even a suspicion of discrimination it can be brought before the courts to determine whether or not discrimination has really occurred.
That really about sums it up. We cannot see discrimination in every organization and still claim to be moving towards equality. But maybe I'm just incapable of seeing discrimination the way my coworker seems to believe. You decide...
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Too Angry for Words... Almost
Today I was judged based on the color of my skin.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Girls Don't have to be "Good"
There are many double standards between men and women that we have yet to break through. This is most prominent in the realm of love, romance, and sex. A woman who hits on or "picks up" a man is forward but when a man does it he's a player. A man who sleeps around is a stud but a woman who does is typed as a slut. There are certainly segments of society that have broken through and disregard these stereotypes, but the overwhelming majority are still clinging to societal traditions.
Another area where this double standard is apparent is in porn. Men watching porn is almost a given and only the extreme conservatives make a fuss out of it. Women, on the other hand, are commonly thought to have no interest in porn. The worst indicator of this is the "Porn for Women" book series. I give this entire line of books 2 thumbs down.
The idea that women are turned on sexually by images of men vacuuming, doing dishes, and changing diapers is a huge step affront to women everywhere. True, many women in long term relationships may like to see their partner doing those things, but that's not the point of porn. Porn is meant to be sexually arousing and unless you've got a fetish for it diaper duty is not it.
Women should be free to watch porn to their hearts content. Soft core, hard core, whatever their personal pleasure. Ladies, if men can do it, so can you.
Another area where this double standard is apparent is in porn. Men watching porn is almost a given and only the extreme conservatives make a fuss out of it. Women, on the other hand, are commonly thought to have no interest in porn. The worst indicator of this is the "Porn for Women" book series. I give this entire line of books 2 thumbs down.
The idea that women are turned on sexually by images of men vacuuming, doing dishes, and changing diapers is a huge step affront to women everywhere. True, many women in long term relationships may like to see their partner doing those things, but that's not the point of porn. Porn is meant to be sexually arousing and unless you've got a fetish for it diaper duty is not it.
Women should be free to watch porn to their hearts content. Soft core, hard core, whatever their personal pleasure. Ladies, if men can do it, so can you.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
It Doesn't Take Millions to End Homelessness
The header to this installment is the contents of a sign I saw yesterday in my city's dwindling occupy movement and only proved to me just how idiotic the movement has been. This is evidence of our society's failure to grasp Roosevelt's famous expression of giving "a hand up, not a hand out." Our society expects instant gratification, not understanding the cost attached to having their whims fulfilled.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Airplane Philosophy and Other Tidbits
Well, I'm returning from a much needed hiatus. I've got a new job so no more complaints about that. I also gave up on making my old insurance company pay up after going 5 rounds and almost 6 months with them (another reason for the job change).
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)