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.
Monday, April 30, 2012
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)