I have been woefully negligent in posting the last week but I do hope to make up for it. I will be taking a slight detour from my series on Children's Rights, but that subject is not to be forgotten.
Today's topic is not the latest breaking news in the country but it does raise an important point. I am talking about the Violence Against Women Act and you can review the general points of the debate here in an article by the Washington Post.
I will start off by saying that I find the Violence Against Women Act an important piece of legislation. Domestic violence is a very real problem and we have come a long way from the days when EMTs would say "she probably deserved it" or "she must have provoked him." To abuse someone you claim to love, even verbally, is a horrible breach of trust.
That said, I have one major issue with this legislation that the government, particularly Republicans, fail to recognize. The fact is domestic violence is not isolated to instances with women being abused by a male partner. Yes, reports of this type are in the majority, but women can be abusive to their male or female partners and a man can abuse his male partner just as easily as a female partner. Unfortunately, due to societal pressure, men vastly under report their own abuse. It isn't "manly" or "macho" to be beaten up by your girlfriend and men may feel ashamed to come forward about the abuse or shrug it off as nothing. I know a man who candidly told me how an old girlfriend smacked him in the head with a frying pan for staying out all night as if this were nothing to be concerned about. Focusing our domestic violence protection funds towards women only reinforces this idea that men are not being abused or that it doesn't matter if they are. To all the men out there, it's not okay, it's not nothing, and you should never tolerate an abusive relationship.
Another concern I have about this legislation is the image of women. I'm not a raging feminist, but even I cringe with the implication that women need a special congressional act protecting them from domestic violence but men don't. Either domestic violence is okay or it's not, we cannot play this game where we actively protect some segments of the population but not others, this is discrimination in action.
A more appropriate name for the act would be the "Domestic Violence Protection Act" with funding allocated to programs for men and same sex couples alongside female heterosexuals. We're all people, and we all have a right to live safe, happy lives without the fear of violence.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 1
Children are people, are they not? Certainly they are smaller, generally less intelligent, hindered by lack of experience and still developing brain chemistry, but they are members of the Homospien species which makes them human and endowed with the same natural rights as each of us. As a civilized society we have established certain cultural standards that says that children, in general, are dependent (i.e. do not have independence) until they reach the age of 18. Until they reach that age their interests and safety are in the care of their legal guardian who is most commonly a biological parent. This custodian is the holder of all of the minors rights and freedoms, which is why police cannot interrogate a child without the presence of their guardian or if the guardian has waived the right to be present.
With that idea established, I find this article from MSNBC highly disturbing.
The article is loaded enough with issues that I've decided to make it into a brief series treating on the following subjects:
Day 1(today): children's rights
Day 2: parenting
Day 3: brainwashing
Day 4: search and seizure
Day 5: right to privacy
Day 6: freedom of speech
Today's topic I have already about covered but I would like make one additional note:
Now that I have established that the parents/guardians are the holders of a child's rights, I'd like to make a pointed observation about the article. It states "The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission." This raises a very important question of how the lawsuit was brought. Are we really meant to believe that a 12 year old contacted the ACLU and is pressing this lawsuit without the go ahead of her parents? Possible, but highly unlikely. The odds are that, when their daughter came home crying and they figured out what had happened the parent(s) put things into action.
If password prying is a "standard practice" at the school, as the ACLU claims, then odds are that either they have informed parents in the past and obtained permission or, more likely, other students have been too intimidated to tell their parents. After getting in trouble at school, kids are unlikely to come home and tell their parents which could result in even more punishment at home. If the former is the case then I have much fewer issues with the circumstances, but if it is the latter as I suspect this school better be seeing a severe reprimand in the near future.
With that idea established, I find this article from MSNBC highly disturbing.
The article is loaded enough with issues that I've decided to make it into a brief series treating on the following subjects:
Day 1(today): children's rights
Day 2: parenting
Day 3: brainwashing
Day 4: search and seizure
Day 5: right to privacy
Day 6: freedom of speech
Today's topic I have already about covered but I would like make one additional note:
Now that I have established that the parents/guardians are the holders of a child's rights, I'd like to make a pointed observation about the article. It states "The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission." This raises a very important question of how the lawsuit was brought. Are we really meant to believe that a 12 year old contacted the ACLU and is pressing this lawsuit without the go ahead of her parents? Possible, but highly unlikely. The odds are that, when their daughter came home crying and they figured out what had happened the parent(s) put things into action.
If password prying is a "standard practice" at the school, as the ACLU claims, then odds are that either they have informed parents in the past and obtained permission or, more likely, other students have been too intimidated to tell their parents. After getting in trouble at school, kids are unlikely to come home and tell their parents which could result in even more punishment at home. If the former is the case then I have much fewer issues with the circumstances, but if it is the latter as I suspect this school better be seeing a severe reprimand in the near future.
Monday, March 12, 2012
"You don't need to see his identification" *
The winner today is straight out of Texas, though the article can be found in the LA Times.
The question at hand is: should ID be required to vote.
My short answer, yes!
The article I reference is a fairly unbiased piece and I would like to take a moment to lay out both sides of the argument.
On the Pro (for ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID reduces voter fraud. The minor case includes the more specific point of reducing the ability of illegal aliens to vote, you have to be a US citizen to vote after all. The minor case is not specifically stated in the article, but it can be extrapolated from the circumstances.
On the Con (against ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID is discriminatory. The minor case includes clauses in the Voting Rights Act that has dictated that certain states must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election procedures. There is obvious historical context here in the great lengths that some southern states went through in order to prevent African Americans from voting before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The problem with the Con side is that these laws are not singling out any one group or individual. ALL people would be required to show a specific, approved form of ID in order to vote regardless of their race, religion, color, or creed. It's not like the 50s when African Americans were required to guess the number of beans in a jar while Caucasians could vote without this ridiculous hurdle. It is possible for any, and every, legal citizen of the United States to obtain a government issued ID. In fact, as the article points out, ID is already required to open a bank account, board a plane, and many other nearly essential activities. Why should voting be treated as anything less?
It is important to note that the "data" referenced by the assistant attorney general claims 800,000 people, not citizens, are without a government ID and 38% of these are Latino. Yes, 38% is a big percentage, but you must consider it in relation to the overall demographic of the area. The Latino population in Texas is approximately 6.7 million (32%) according to the 2010 census so if about 38% of the 800k figure are Latino, that is roughly representative of the state's demographic.
Data from the Department of Human Services indicates that there are approximately 700,000 illegal residents in the state of Texas, and 54% of those are Hispanic/Latino. This data suggests to me that we do have a problem with voter fraud requiring more stringent registration methods. If all of these numbers are correct (and I'm sure there is a liberal margin of error) there could be more than 75,000 illegal Hispanic/Latino immigrants who are currently exercising a voting privilege that is not theirs. The total number of illegal immigrants in Texas alone who are voting grows to well over 100,000 when all other races/nationalities are taken into account.
The bottom line, cases of voter discrimination should be dealt with harshly, but requiring ID to vote is not discriminatory. This is another case of politicians manipulating numbers they don't understand to make an argument appear valid when it's not.
*So I don't get in trouble with George Lucas, the title quote is from Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope
The question at hand is: should ID be required to vote.
My short answer, yes!
The article I reference is a fairly unbiased piece and I would like to take a moment to lay out both sides of the argument.
On the Pro (for ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID reduces voter fraud. The minor case includes the more specific point of reducing the ability of illegal aliens to vote, you have to be a US citizen to vote after all. The minor case is not specifically stated in the article, but it can be extrapolated from the circumstances.
On the Con (against ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID is discriminatory. The minor case includes clauses in the Voting Rights Act that has dictated that certain states must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election procedures. There is obvious historical context here in the great lengths that some southern states went through in order to prevent African Americans from voting before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The problem with the Con side is that these laws are not singling out any one group or individual. ALL people would be required to show a specific, approved form of ID in order to vote regardless of their race, religion, color, or creed. It's not like the 50s when African Americans were required to guess the number of beans in a jar while Caucasians could vote without this ridiculous hurdle. It is possible for any, and every, legal citizen of the United States to obtain a government issued ID. In fact, as the article points out, ID is already required to open a bank account, board a plane, and many other nearly essential activities. Why should voting be treated as anything less?
It is important to note that the "data" referenced by the assistant attorney general claims 800,000 people, not citizens, are without a government ID and 38% of these are Latino. Yes, 38% is a big percentage, but you must consider it in relation to the overall demographic of the area. The Latino population in Texas is approximately 6.7 million (32%) according to the 2010 census so if about 38% of the 800k figure are Latino, that is roughly representative of the state's demographic.
Data from the Department of Human Services indicates that there are approximately 700,000 illegal residents in the state of Texas, and 54% of those are Hispanic/Latino. This data suggests to me that we do have a problem with voter fraud requiring more stringent registration methods. If all of these numbers are correct (and I'm sure there is a liberal margin of error) there could be more than 75,000 illegal Hispanic/Latino immigrants who are currently exercising a voting privilege that is not theirs. The total number of illegal immigrants in Texas alone who are voting grows to well over 100,000 when all other races/nationalities are taken into account.
The bottom line, cases of voter discrimination should be dealt with harshly, but requiring ID to vote is not discriminatory. This is another case of politicians manipulating numbers they don't understand to make an argument appear valid when it's not.
*So I don't get in trouble with George Lucas, the title quote is from Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope
Friday, March 9, 2012
Sit Back and Watch the World Burn
I feel the need to write but have nothing of particular importance on my mind this evening. All I have been feeling lately is a general irritation towards the world as we know it. Maybe I've been reading too much post-apocalyptic sci-fi, but I find myself wishing at times that the end of the world would come so we could just be done with it all. If it did I'd either be dead (and whether or not you believe in an afterlife my troubles would be over), or I'd survive and struggle on.
Looking at the world we live in I see more and more of the corruption that has oozed and spread like a plague across the world. Even those who claim to want to save the world only do so by blatantly endorsing the oppression of others. Good, hardworking people can't find a job to support themselves, let alone a family. The government is spending money hand over fist to support industries that are failing and banks that are only in this position from their own stupidity and corruption. We still can't decide if we want rampant spending or higher taxes (you can't have both) so the federal government is going bankrupt. Congress continues to entertain ideas and support laws that violate the constitution (and I'm not just talking the Bill or Rights). Greece has fallen, dictators seem a dime a dozen, China is teetering on the collapse of its housing market.
We built this card house and now a wind has come to knock it down. The cards have already begun to fall and our feeble attempts to hold things together only weaken our foundation more. We've lost site of the important things in life and, at the moment, I don't see how we can repair what we have to stop the inevitable collapse. Sometimes it is better to let the cards fall and start fresh from scratch.
Bring it on Mayans, Nostradamus, or the Second Coming. I'm not afraid of you.
Looking at the world we live in I see more and more of the corruption that has oozed and spread like a plague across the world. Even those who claim to want to save the world only do so by blatantly endorsing the oppression of others. Good, hardworking people can't find a job to support themselves, let alone a family. The government is spending money hand over fist to support industries that are failing and banks that are only in this position from their own stupidity and corruption. We still can't decide if we want rampant spending or higher taxes (you can't have both) so the federal government is going bankrupt. Congress continues to entertain ideas and support laws that violate the constitution (and I'm not just talking the Bill or Rights). Greece has fallen, dictators seem a dime a dozen, China is teetering on the collapse of its housing market.
We built this card house and now a wind has come to knock it down. The cards have already begun to fall and our feeble attempts to hold things together only weaken our foundation more. We've lost site of the important things in life and, at the moment, I don't see how we can repair what we have to stop the inevitable collapse. Sometimes it is better to let the cards fall and start fresh from scratch.
Bring it on Mayans, Nostradamus, or the Second Coming. I'm not afraid of you.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Two for Tuesday
So now that I have gotten my rant against FF out of the way I would like to touch on a socio-religious subject.
This weekend I was talking with a close personal friend and during the conversation we touched on Christian Sunday School topics (don't ask me how we got to that). As we were talking we realized that there is much contained in the Bible that children are kept blissfully ignorant of, intentionally or not, until they are indoctrinated enough to gloss over these shady facts. I believe there are two reasons behind this.
The first reason seems obvious. Any parent who takes their child to Sunday School each week has certain expectations. These expectations include their child knowing all the "classic" Bible stories like Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, the birth of Jesus, the many miracles of Jesus, the Easter story, you get the picture. In some faiths it is even expected to admonition and to a certain extent frighten children with stories of fire and brimstone like Jonah and Daniel and even parts of Revelations.
Parental expectations do not extend to telling young children about the part in the story of Lot where Lot offers up his virginal daughters to a mob of rapists in order to protect guests in his household.(Genesis Ch. 19) They would also be less likely to take their children to Sunday school if their children learned how, after God led the Israelites out of the desert after 40 years of wandering he commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child among the Canaanites and destroy all of their temples and sacred places. (Dueteronomy Ch. 7 & 12)
The second reason is an attempt to "preserve the faith". I don't know if this is entirely intentional since many of the people perpetuating this system have themselves been brainwashed into blindly believing the doctrine they are taught. The lessons seem to start with the very basics of "God is good" and "God is everywhere" which are not so bad taken by themselves but are very difficult to establish if I child is learning the many atrocities that are outlined in the Bible that God appears to have either overlooked or openly endorsed. Things ramp up into ideas like "God is just" and all that that entails such as a system of reward and punishment based on actions and even thoughts centered around a black and white image of right and wrong. The absolute nature of this statement means that, in order for that to be true, you must make the leap to "God is always right". The problem is not with these statements alone but with their overlay with organized religion.
With time these statements morph as God becomes equivalent to the church thus: "the church is good", "the church is just", and "the church is always right". I'm sure the church would also attempt to be everywhere and see everything if it could, but this is not possible on our dimensional plane. It is this blind following that has resulted in the Crusades and other holy wars over the centuries.
We need more intelligent Christians in the world who can separate the concept of church from the root of their faith which should be God and Jesus Christ.
This weekend I was talking with a close personal friend and during the conversation we touched on Christian Sunday School topics (don't ask me how we got to that). As we were talking we realized that there is much contained in the Bible that children are kept blissfully ignorant of, intentionally or not, until they are indoctrinated enough to gloss over these shady facts. I believe there are two reasons behind this.
The first reason seems obvious. Any parent who takes their child to Sunday School each week has certain expectations. These expectations include their child knowing all the "classic" Bible stories like Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, the birth of Jesus, the many miracles of Jesus, the Easter story, you get the picture. In some faiths it is even expected to admonition and to a certain extent frighten children with stories of fire and brimstone like Jonah and Daniel and even parts of Revelations.
Parental expectations do not extend to telling young children about the part in the story of Lot where Lot offers up his virginal daughters to a mob of rapists in order to protect guests in his household.(Genesis Ch. 19) They would also be less likely to take their children to Sunday school if their children learned how, after God led the Israelites out of the desert after 40 years of wandering he commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child among the Canaanites and destroy all of their temples and sacred places. (Dueteronomy Ch. 7 & 12)
The second reason is an attempt to "preserve the faith". I don't know if this is entirely intentional since many of the people perpetuating this system have themselves been brainwashed into blindly believing the doctrine they are taught. The lessons seem to start with the very basics of "God is good" and "God is everywhere" which are not so bad taken by themselves but are very difficult to establish if I child is learning the many atrocities that are outlined in the Bible that God appears to have either overlooked or openly endorsed. Things ramp up into ideas like "God is just" and all that that entails such as a system of reward and punishment based on actions and even thoughts centered around a black and white image of right and wrong. The absolute nature of this statement means that, in order for that to be true, you must make the leap to "God is always right". The problem is not with these statements alone but with their overlay with organized religion.
With time these statements morph as God becomes equivalent to the church thus: "the church is good", "the church is just", and "the church is always right". I'm sure the church would also attempt to be everywhere and see everything if it could, but this is not possible on our dimensional plane. It is this blind following that has resulted in the Crusades and other holy wars over the centuries.
We need more intelligent Christians in the world who can separate the concept of church from the root of their faith which should be God and Jesus Christ.
Wait a Minute...
From FF: "Someone is unrelentingly waving their relationships with First Nations people in the conversation, to distract from the fact that she seems to think that if a handful of First Nations people disagree with a particular First Nations activist (who is of the same ethnicity), she's not going to say it out loud, but that means he's wrong. Which is racist, because it implies that all people of the same ethnicity are expected to adhere to the same set of politics."
I think FF is officially off his rocker. I'm almost ashamed at the fact that this argument needs to be debunked, but as long as FF is spewing these inherent falsehoods I will persevere. Before I argue I need to lay the conditions on which FF's argument is formed:
(a) Person Z believes in some principle/organization/thing/whatever
(b) Persons B, C, & D disagree with person Z on said subject
(c) Persons B, C, D, & Z are of the same race
(d) Person A presumes that person Z is wrong about said subject
Given the above conditions... 1) is person A making the assumption that all people of that particular race should hold the same opinion on the selected subject? and 2) is person A racist because of this presumption?
In both cases the answer is obviously no. The biggest fallacy to FF's argument is that there is no condition stating why person A disagrees with person Z. It could be because person A has heard the arguments from both sides and determined that person Z is on the incorrect side. It could be that person A is friends with person B, C, and/or D and is taking their side because of that relationship. It could be because person A doesn't like person Z and is being intentionally contrary. Or it could be because it's a Tuesday and that is what person A has decided to believe for the moment. Whatever the reasoning, it is illogical to take the above conditions and draw the conclusion that person A is being racist.
I think FF is officially off his rocker. I'm almost ashamed at the fact that this argument needs to be debunked, but as long as FF is spewing these inherent falsehoods I will persevere. Before I argue I need to lay the conditions on which FF's argument is formed:
(a) Person Z believes in some principle/organization/thing/whatever
(b) Persons B, C, & D disagree with person Z on said subject
(c) Persons B, C, D, & Z are of the same race
(d) Person A presumes that person Z is wrong about said subject
Given the above conditions... 1) is person A making the assumption that all people of that particular race should hold the same opinion on the selected subject? and 2) is person A racist because of this presumption?
In both cases the answer is obviously no. The biggest fallacy to FF's argument is that there is no condition stating why person A disagrees with person Z. It could be because person A has heard the arguments from both sides and determined that person Z is on the incorrect side. It could be that person A is friends with person B, C, and/or D and is taking their side because of that relationship. It could be because person A doesn't like person Z and is being intentionally contrary. Or it could be because it's a Tuesday and that is what person A has decided to believe for the moment. Whatever the reasoning, it is illogical to take the above conditions and draw the conclusion that person A is being racist.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
My Vote Doesn't Count
In most cases I would say that no matter what, every vote counts, but in the case of US presidential candidate nominations this is not the case. It is barely March, barely a fifth of the states have weighed in and already it is being presumed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate this fall. Super Tuesday is just 5 days away which should more of less decide who the candidate will be but less than half of the states will have cast their votes. This is decidedly unfair to states like Utah, New Mexico, and Oregon who do not have their primaries until late May and the beginning of June.
I understand the theoretical reason why primaries and caucuses are spread out over six months. It gives candidates the chance to focus their funds and attention on individual regions to gain a greater rapport with the local population. This is a great idea, but the implementation is all wrong.
If it was so important to spread things out then why do 33 states hold these nominations between January and March but only 21 from April through June? Granted that 33 includes places like Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands that are not included in the November election, but the weighting is still disproportional. To break it up even further, there are 4 in January, 7 in February, 22 in March, 8 in April, 7 in May, and 6 in June. There is no logic to the proportions.
I can suggest 3 better plans:
1) Hold all primaries/caucuses on the same day (like every other election). This should take place approximately 1 month before the general nominating convention and candidates should use the proceeding months to campaign and strengthen their following:
Pros: Residents of one state will not be influenced by the results of a previous outcome and the race won't be effectively over before all states have had their say.
Cons: Candidates will not have the chance to focus on smaller chunks of the nation to gain local support. It will also increase marketing costs for candidates as they will have to release more national rather than regional ads.
2) Space state primaries evenly over the course of 6 months. This would mean approximately 26 weeks with 2-3 elections each week or doing monthly votes with 9 states voting on the same day at the end of each month. What state has which slot would be a random draw that could be done the year before so that no state winds up with a historically bad spot at the end of the line like we have now:
Pros: States will not be stuck with their primary not being effective year after year and candidates can still focus their attention on one segment of the country at a time.
Cons: Logistical coordination becomes very difficult, especially in states where the primary is tied to other local elections.
3) Determine primary position based on the number of delegates up for grabs moving from least to greatest number. This means the smallest states would go first and be able to set a trend but the larger states that follow would still have enough weight to make a difference in the overall outcome:
Pros: Determines the delegates in a manner so that smaller states will not be completely overridden by their larger counterparts and delegates can still given attention to local votes.
Cons: Does not completely remove the possibility of a race being determined before all states can have their say.
Of the three options the third is my personal favorite, followed by number one. Unfortunately I do not have the means or the power to put forth or implement any of these plans so I suppose we will have to live with the FT level 6 system we currently have in place.
I understand the theoretical reason why primaries and caucuses are spread out over six months. It gives candidates the chance to focus their funds and attention on individual regions to gain a greater rapport with the local population. This is a great idea, but the implementation is all wrong.
If it was so important to spread things out then why do 33 states hold these nominations between January and March but only 21 from April through June? Granted that 33 includes places like Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands that are not included in the November election, but the weighting is still disproportional. To break it up even further, there are 4 in January, 7 in February, 22 in March, 8 in April, 7 in May, and 6 in June. There is no logic to the proportions.
I can suggest 3 better plans:
1) Hold all primaries/caucuses on the same day (like every other election). This should take place approximately 1 month before the general nominating convention and candidates should use the proceeding months to campaign and strengthen their following:
Pros: Residents of one state will not be influenced by the results of a previous outcome and the race won't be effectively over before all states have had their say.
Cons: Candidates will not have the chance to focus on smaller chunks of the nation to gain local support. It will also increase marketing costs for candidates as they will have to release more national rather than regional ads.
2) Space state primaries evenly over the course of 6 months. This would mean approximately 26 weeks with 2-3 elections each week or doing monthly votes with 9 states voting on the same day at the end of each month. What state has which slot would be a random draw that could be done the year before so that no state winds up with a historically bad spot at the end of the line like we have now:
Pros: States will not be stuck with their primary not being effective year after year and candidates can still focus their attention on one segment of the country at a time.
Cons: Logistical coordination becomes very difficult, especially in states where the primary is tied to other local elections.
3) Determine primary position based on the number of delegates up for grabs moving from least to greatest number. This means the smallest states would go first and be able to set a trend but the larger states that follow would still have enough weight to make a difference in the overall outcome:
Pros: Determines the delegates in a manner so that smaller states will not be completely overridden by their larger counterparts and delegates can still given attention to local votes.
Cons: Does not completely remove the possibility of a race being determined before all states can have their say.
Of the three options the third is my personal favorite, followed by number one. Unfortunately I do not have the means or the power to put forth or implement any of these plans so I suppose we will have to live with the FT level 6 system we currently have in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)