“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
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)