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...
Saturday, October 6, 2012
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.
Friday, May 11, 2012
People Should not be Afraid of their Government
Today I was wondering downtown and there was a man trying to get people to sign a petition to put up a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. I put my signature down, and gladly, though even if it gets on the ballot it won't pass, even if it does pass the courts will likely overturn it, but my signature is where it belongs.
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Playing on Sympathies
President Obama's announcement earlier this week that he supported legalizing gay marriage has caused quite a stir, as I'm sure his campaign intended it to. Though he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" he is still coming our in support of gay marriage. Overall his speech is full of mixed messages.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Missionary Mayhem
Today I got a visit from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormon) missionaries. It was a very sweet elderly couple who started off trying to flatter me into submission. I invited them in and we all got comfortable at the dining room table before I started in on them. I am fairly familiar with LDS (their term for themselves) doctrine so I brought the conversation around to my main issue with the church, their treatment of the LGBT community. We spent the next hour going around in circles about this. I'll paraphrase the arguments for the sake of brevity:
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Mutually Exclusive
Today I was musing on the concepts of freedom and equality. Both are spectacular ideals that cause as many problems as they solve because they are mutually exclusive, or nearly so. To many people this may seem like a lie, but a little examination into the true meaning and consequences of each reveals it all.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
Monday, April 30, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 4
I've been away a long time and it is time I broke that fast as well as pick up the old series on Children's Rights.
The original story, for those just joining in, involves a middle school girl who is intimidated into revealing her facebook password to school officials who then had her suspended because of the things she had posted.
For today's installment I would like to lay out another scenario. A woman is home alone. Two police officers arrive at the door. They ask to enter the home and the woman says no. They ask if she's hiding something and she again says no. The officers say they can get a warrant and she should just let them in and she tells them to come back when they do have a warrant. Now comes the turning point, the officers barge past the woman and begin searching her home despite her resistance.
An elementary school child could tell you that the above scenario is a violation of the fourth amendment which bars against illegal search and seizure. Now the question is, how does this relate the case of a middle school girl and her facebook page?
The comparison starts with the middle school girl being equated to the woman home alone. The school officials can be equated to the police officers since they both hold a position of authority. The house itself is just like the girl's facebook page in that it is personal property. Both items of personal property are protected from general view, one by a password and the other by locks, designed to keep out anyone besides the owner and those allowed in by the owner. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or the owner's permission, authorities can not enter or view the contents.
In the case of the middle school girl, the school officials obviously didn't have a warrant. Exigent circumstances are only granted when it is believed that someone is in imminent risk of physical harm so comments on a facebook page hardly qualify. As for permission, intimidating the person into giving you access is not considered acceptable and a 12-year-old girl is very easily intimidated.
The original story, for those just joining in, involves a middle school girl who is intimidated into revealing her facebook password to school officials who then had her suspended because of the things she had posted.
For today's installment I would like to lay out another scenario. A woman is home alone. Two police officers arrive at the door. They ask to enter the home and the woman says no. They ask if she's hiding something and she again says no. The officers say they can get a warrant and she should just let them in and she tells them to come back when they do have a warrant. Now comes the turning point, the officers barge past the woman and begin searching her home despite her resistance.
An elementary school child could tell you that the above scenario is a violation of the fourth amendment which bars against illegal search and seizure. Now the question is, how does this relate the case of a middle school girl and her facebook page?
The comparison starts with the middle school girl being equated to the woman home alone. The school officials can be equated to the police officers since they both hold a position of authority. The house itself is just like the girl's facebook page in that it is personal property. Both items of personal property are protected from general view, one by a password and the other by locks, designed to keep out anyone besides the owner and those allowed in by the owner. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or the owner's permission, authorities can not enter or view the contents.
In the case of the middle school girl, the school officials obviously didn't have a warrant. Exigent circumstances are only granted when it is believed that someone is in imminent risk of physical harm so comments on a facebook page hardly qualify. As for permission, intimidating the person into giving you access is not considered acceptable and a 12-year-old girl is very easily intimidated.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Active Discrimination on the Part of the FDA
Today's topic has me livid.
This morning I went to a local Red Cross blood drive with the intent of making a donation. For personal medical reasons it has been several years since I have given blood and in the past I must have glossed over or not registered the blatant discrimination included therein.
The particular section in question was reasons you cannot/should not give blood, particularly in regards to HIV and AIDS. One of the bullet points was "If you are a man who has had sexual contact, even once, with another man since 1977".
I had to read the line and the header several times, not sure if I was seeing what I was actually seeing. Finally, I got up from my chair, took the packet to the lady at the reception table, and told her that I would be walking out and not donating today under protest for their discriminatory practices. I explained my reason to the ladies at the desk as well as a technician who came out to talk to me about it. My reasons are thus:
That verbiage effectively disqualifies every gay man, whether or not they have HIV or are having unsafe sex. It also appears to me to promote a link between HIV and being gay which has been proven false many times over. Yes, HIV began its spread in the gay community, but it can also be transmitted through needles and between heterosexual couples. The so called "gay disease" is a myth that no one in their right mind has believed since the 90s and there is a large percentage of the gay community who practice safe sex and/or have a limited number of partners. I cannot support policies that deny 8% of the male population the right to give blood.
I took contact info for the Red Cross with me and was told that their policies are only following FDA guidelines.
When I got home I called the Red Cross. The man on the line reiterated that they are only following FDA guidelines but that they are trying to get those guidelines changed from a blanket exclusion to a waiting period. I.E. after a certain period of time without male to male sexual contact a person could start giving blood again. But I had to point out to him that this was still discriminatory because it would require a gay couple in a long term, monogamous relationship to abstain from sex (presumably for months if not years) just for the privilege of giving blood. I made sure he logged my formal complaint and then got the contact info for the FDA to pursue the matter further.
I am making the personal choice to protest and not give blood again until this statute is changed. I consider this a great personal sacrifice as well as a weighty choice because giving blood can be a life saving matter, but if we do not stand up for change this discrimination will only continue. It is 2012 and we live in a nation where we know that homosexuality is not contagious. It is time we stop allowing our government to continue policies that say otherwise.
If you would like to make your own stand make some calls and get the word out:
American Red Cross:
866-236-3276
FDA:
Email them through "Contact Us" page on www.fda.gov
888-463-6332
This morning I went to a local Red Cross blood drive with the intent of making a donation. For personal medical reasons it has been several years since I have given blood and in the past I must have glossed over or not registered the blatant discrimination included therein.
The particular section in question was reasons you cannot/should not give blood, particularly in regards to HIV and AIDS. One of the bullet points was "If you are a man who has had sexual contact, even once, with another man since 1977".
I had to read the line and the header several times, not sure if I was seeing what I was actually seeing. Finally, I got up from my chair, took the packet to the lady at the reception table, and told her that I would be walking out and not donating today under protest for their discriminatory practices. I explained my reason to the ladies at the desk as well as a technician who came out to talk to me about it. My reasons are thus:
That verbiage effectively disqualifies every gay man, whether or not they have HIV or are having unsafe sex. It also appears to me to promote a link between HIV and being gay which has been proven false many times over. Yes, HIV began its spread in the gay community, but it can also be transmitted through needles and between heterosexual couples. The so called "gay disease" is a myth that no one in their right mind has believed since the 90s and there is a large percentage of the gay community who practice safe sex and/or have a limited number of partners. I cannot support policies that deny 8% of the male population the right to give blood.
I took contact info for the Red Cross with me and was told that their policies are only following FDA guidelines.
When I got home I called the Red Cross. The man on the line reiterated that they are only following FDA guidelines but that they are trying to get those guidelines changed from a blanket exclusion to a waiting period. I.E. after a certain period of time without male to male sexual contact a person could start giving blood again. But I had to point out to him that this was still discriminatory because it would require a gay couple in a long term, monogamous relationship to abstain from sex (presumably for months if not years) just for the privilege of giving blood. I made sure he logged my formal complaint and then got the contact info for the FDA to pursue the matter further.
I am making the personal choice to protest and not give blood again until this statute is changed. I consider this a great personal sacrifice as well as a weighty choice because giving blood can be a life saving matter, but if we do not stand up for change this discrimination will only continue. It is 2012 and we live in a nation where we know that homosexuality is not contagious. It is time we stop allowing our government to continue policies that say otherwise.
If you would like to make your own stand make some calls and get the word out:
American Red Cross:
866-236-3276
FDA:
Email them through "Contact Us" page on www.fda.gov
888-463-6332
Monday, April 9, 2012
AJ Up in Arms
A new study has just been published saying that there may be a link between autism rates and obesity in mothers which has AJ up in arms.
The study, which you can read more about here, says that there is a strong though not definitive correlation between mothers with metabolic conditions such as diabetes and obesity and children with developmental delays and autism spectrum disorders. Compare that to the 28 studies that have been completed between 2000 and the present day that have looked for any relationship between vaccines and autism. All of those have come up with nothing.
There was a study completed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998 that claimed there was a link between vaccines and autism. That study has since been discredited and the British Medical Journal, which originally published the findings, "concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study". That means there was 1 case for and 28 against any link between autism and vaccines and that 1 pro-correlation study has now been discredited.
I'm glad to see that the medical community is continuing the search for the cause of autism, but it's time we move on from the vaccine argument. If vaccines really are causing autism then the conspiracy is so large that we've got bigger issues than autism.
The study, which you can read more about here, says that there is a strong though not definitive correlation between mothers with metabolic conditions such as diabetes and obesity and children with developmental delays and autism spectrum disorders. Compare that to the 28 studies that have been completed between 2000 and the present day that have looked for any relationship between vaccines and autism. All of those have come up with nothing.
There was a study completed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998 that claimed there was a link between vaccines and autism. That study has since been discredited and the British Medical Journal, which originally published the findings, "concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study". That means there was 1 case for and 28 against any link between autism and vaccines and that 1 pro-correlation study has now been discredited.
I'm glad to see that the medical community is continuing the search for the cause of autism, but it's time we move on from the vaccine argument. If vaccines really are causing autism then the conspiracy is so large that we've got bigger issues than autism.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Join the Army, Give up your Voice
Being a member of our armed forces deserves a certain amount of respect. Making the choice to lay down your life for your country and all the innocent civilians that you will never know is an honorable thing. But joining the military has a lot of consequences, not just the potential for death. A man named Gary Stein is feeling some of those consequences as noted in this article by MSNBC.
I will keep this short.
Freedom of speech is one of the most valued principles in our country and yet our government would restrict this freedom from our service men and women. This man was not advocating rebellion or sedition. He was not rioting or protesting or refusing to serve despite his enlistment. He was not directly challenging a superior officer (the president may be the Commander in Chief but his comments were made on a moderately public forum presumably to be viewed by friends and relatives). Gary Stein honorably served his country for 9 years and he does not deserve this treatment for expressing his opinion on facebook.
I only hope that this is overturned on review because it sets a bad precedent if it's not.
I will keep this short.
Freedom of speech is one of the most valued principles in our country and yet our government would restrict this freedom from our service men and women. This man was not advocating rebellion or sedition. He was not rioting or protesting or refusing to serve despite his enlistment. He was not directly challenging a superior officer (the president may be the Commander in Chief but his comments were made on a moderately public forum presumably to be viewed by friends and relatives). Gary Stein honorably served his country for 9 years and he does not deserve this treatment for expressing his opinion on facebook.
I only hope that this is overturned on review because it sets a bad precedent if it's not.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
This Should Make you Scared
While perusing the news today I came across this article on MSNBC. The title "5 Men Charged in 9/11 Attacks Could Face Death Penalty" made me do a double take considering it has been more than a decade since the 9/11 attacks. As I read on my horror only grew.
These five men, suspected of plotting and executing the attacks on 9/11 have been held since at least 2003 but charges were not even brought against them until 2008! In 2009 President Obama attempted to move the trial to a civil instead of military court but the charges were thrown out. Our government has continued to hold these men and only now have brought charges again, still in a military court. Where is the justice?
In the United States, authorities cannot legally hold you against your will without arresting you. Once you are arrested, they must bring you before a judge within 72 hours and formal charges must be set down. These men were held in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years before initial charges were brought. And even after the charges were dropped they were held an additional 2+ years until new charges were filed. During that time who knows what they were subjected to? Gitmo has always been rather infamous after all.
I wouldn't even be surprised if at least one of those men was innocent, caught up in the post 9/11 witch hunt. And now they will be put through a military trial in Gitmo, almost certainly found guilty, and in all odds executed without the truth being known to the American people. But what else can our government do? If, by some miracle, one or all of these men were found innocent the backlash would be tremendous. Our government would have to admit that they held foreign nationals for more than 9 years in that hell hole when they had done nothing wrong. What government could live with that shame? Let alone our proud, pompous, arrogant feds. (and yes I know that's redundant but it still doesn't paint them properly)
Maybe they are guilty, and if so I have very few reservations about seeing them executed. If they were guilty they could have and should have been tried and convicted years ago. I understand that the military has always taken fairly liberal license when it comes to issues of terrorism, but this is not the American way. But, then again, with the signing of the NDAA by President Obama I suppose it is.
These five men, suspected of plotting and executing the attacks on 9/11 have been held since at least 2003 but charges were not even brought against them until 2008! In 2009 President Obama attempted to move the trial to a civil instead of military court but the charges were thrown out. Our government has continued to hold these men and only now have brought charges again, still in a military court. Where is the justice?
In the United States, authorities cannot legally hold you against your will without arresting you. Once you are arrested, they must bring you before a judge within 72 hours and formal charges must be set down. These men were held in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years before initial charges were brought. And even after the charges were dropped they were held an additional 2+ years until new charges were filed. During that time who knows what they were subjected to? Gitmo has always been rather infamous after all.
I wouldn't even be surprised if at least one of those men was innocent, caught up in the post 9/11 witch hunt. And now they will be put through a military trial in Gitmo, almost certainly found guilty, and in all odds executed without the truth being known to the American people. But what else can our government do? If, by some miracle, one or all of these men were found innocent the backlash would be tremendous. Our government would have to admit that they held foreign nationals for more than 9 years in that hell hole when they had done nothing wrong. What government could live with that shame? Let alone our proud, pompous, arrogant feds. (and yes I know that's redundant but it still doesn't paint them properly)
Maybe they are guilty, and if so I have very few reservations about seeing them executed. If they were guilty they could have and should have been tried and convicted years ago. I understand that the military has always taken fairly liberal license when it comes to issues of terrorism, but this is not the American way. But, then again, with the signing of the NDAA by President Obama I suppose it is.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
A New Adversary: AJ
I have a new adversary in the world of Facebook. This person is the friend of a friend I posted about previously when discussing vaccines and autism. She seems to have a general disapproval of the medical profession at the same time doing nothing to educate herself about the facts (when I pointed out her friend's math errors, numbers she was also toting as truth, she just told me to go to her friend, didn't bother to check it herself, and continued claiming they were right) I shall dub this friend AJ for Autism Junkie as she seems to have a compulsive need to rant against how the health care industry is causing autism in the giant conspiracy that includes everyone from the government, pharmaceutical companies, the media, and even your own pediatrician.
Today I would like to share a photo that AJ put up on her Facebook page:
This particular tidbit is not about autism specifically, but takes the more general approach of attacking the health care industry with several of them applying to the autism arguments I see her propose. I agree that several of these are lies but with a minor adjustment we find the truth...
- Vaccines can keep you healthy (notice that I say "can" and not "will". In addition, they "keep" you healthy by reducing your chance of getting a disease/illness but they do not "make" you healthy)
- Pharmaceuticals treat disease (the key word here is "treat". Vaccines are designed to prevent disease but are no guarantee. The pharmaceutical industry is primarily focused on treating and curing illness through medications)
- Doctors are knowledgeable about health (true there are specialists who know more about one area of the body than others, but we still know shockingly little about how the body works, so much of what goes on is best guesses so no doctor can truly be considered an expert)
- You have as much of a role as you choose to take in your own healing (some people are content to sit back and let doctors and drugs do the work, others proactively seek answers for their own well being. To say you have no role is not a lie from the health care industry, it is a lie we tell ourselves)
- Disease is caused by many things (environmental, genetic, bad luck, sometimes we just don't know. We should never stop looking for the truth, but when it's staring us in the face we should not insist that it's not there.)
- Screening = A better shot at life (screening is designed to catch illnesses early, before the most devastating and debilitating symptoms take effect. It doesn't stop you from getting the illness, but it can mean the difference between an operable and inoperable tumor)
- Health insurance is out to make money (like any private company, the bottom line is the bottom dollar)
- Hospitals are places of healing (healing is the intent, even if it does not always occur)
- Conventional medicine is advancing (unlike some homeopathic techniques that have been around for centuries without change, modern medicine is bent on advancing the human condition which means growth and progress, even if it often seems slow)
- More research equates to more and better cures (this one was already true but I had to add a bit extra. Just because a miracle cure hasn't dropped out of heaven doesn't mean one will never be found)
AJ is so intent on seeing lies she can not see the real truth resting just beneath these intentionally misleading statements. To everyone out there: Educate yourself. Question the world. Do not let anger and personal injury get in the way of clear-headed thinking.
Today I would like to share a photo that AJ put up on her Facebook page:
This particular tidbit is not about autism specifically, but takes the more general approach of attacking the health care industry with several of them applying to the autism arguments I see her propose. I agree that several of these are lies but with a minor adjustment we find the truth...
- Vaccines can keep you healthy (notice that I say "can" and not "will". In addition, they "keep" you healthy by reducing your chance of getting a disease/illness but they do not "make" you healthy)
- Pharmaceuticals treat disease (the key word here is "treat". Vaccines are designed to prevent disease but are no guarantee. The pharmaceutical industry is primarily focused on treating and curing illness through medications)
- Doctors are knowledgeable about health (true there are specialists who know more about one area of the body than others, but we still know shockingly little about how the body works, so much of what goes on is best guesses so no doctor can truly be considered an expert)
- You have as much of a role as you choose to take in your own healing (some people are content to sit back and let doctors and drugs do the work, others proactively seek answers for their own well being. To say you have no role is not a lie from the health care industry, it is a lie we tell ourselves)
- Disease is caused by many things (environmental, genetic, bad luck, sometimes we just don't know. We should never stop looking for the truth, but when it's staring us in the face we should not insist that it's not there.)
- Screening = A better shot at life (screening is designed to catch illnesses early, before the most devastating and debilitating symptoms take effect. It doesn't stop you from getting the illness, but it can mean the difference between an operable and inoperable tumor)
- Health insurance is out to make money (like any private company, the bottom line is the bottom dollar)
- Hospitals are places of healing (healing is the intent, even if it does not always occur)
- Conventional medicine is advancing (unlike some homeopathic techniques that have been around for centuries without change, modern medicine is bent on advancing the human condition which means growth and progress, even if it often seems slow)
- More research equates to more and better cures (this one was already true but I had to add a bit extra. Just because a miracle cure hasn't dropped out of heaven doesn't mean one will never be found)
AJ is so intent on seeing lies she can not see the real truth resting just beneath these intentionally misleading statements. To everyone out there: Educate yourself. Question the world. Do not let anger and personal injury get in the way of clear-headed thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)