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."
Friday, May 11, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)