Oh what a world...

With so much going on in the political world lately, its difficult to pick a single topic.

Gun legislation dying in Congress, because "it'll never work". (Uh, hello? Australia anyone?) No, seriously, have our members of Congress looked at what sweeping gun regulations did for Australia's death by gun rates? No links present atm, sorry, I didn't save those, but The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has a good bit of information for it this week.

The sequester, particularly the FAA furloughs, and Congress speeding a bill through to stop those due to the delays in air travel. (Guess they didn't want to be inconvenienced. Bonus for us~)

Mail laced with Ricin sent to the President, a Senator, and a Judge. (Was Anthrax too obvious for you?) I suppose this was only considered political due to the targets since motive is as of yet unknown from what I gathered.

The (somewhat laughable) George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. (In which he can tell you that you're wrong for deciding to not invade Iraq and why his decision was the right one and you're wrong for saying otherwise.)

And finally, the bill to stop warantless email snooping. Interesting fact currently no email is needed at all to be able to go through your email correspondence. Frikkin fantastic. Thanks to this  bill though (provided it, you know, passes and they don't amend it all to hell to basically make it useless at protecting whatever privacy we deluded ourselves into thinking we had) that will stop and search warants will be required to be able to take that sneakypeak.

Here's a little gem from the article:

Senator Jeff Sessions said major city chiefs of police, FBI groups, district attorneys and others had expressed grave concerns about the bill. "It seems to me these concerns are very real," he said. "In the real world agents sometime have to do 30, 40, 50 pages [of] documents to get a warrant. It intimidates them and they just don't try. [Some] cases, particularly terrorism cases, may never be followed up on simply because of that burden"

I'm sorry if the agents are too LAZY to do the jobs REQUIRED of them when they wish to go searching through and invading someone's privacy. That sounds more like an issue that their superiors need to address directly with said agents, rather than attempting to compromise the freedoms and rights that we as citizens are told that we have. If someone wants to go through any of my things, they better have a bullet-proof reason for wanting to do so. (How many bids that mentioning ricin and the President set off some flags somewhere? If you think I'm paranoid about thinking that, you clearly haven't been paying attention, now have you?)

I'm amazed sometimes that we can get anything done with our elected officials being as split as they are... when it, you know, gets done.

'Tis barely a scratch!

Ok, so a few issues with Ever Changing Civility's post, and I'll try to keep this gentle and draw as little blood as possible. Do note, that I enjoy playing something of a Devli's Advocate, and while I may not agree with the side I happen to be advocating for, its fun to do so. Though the parallels in this writing were clear, the humor behind it clearly missed its mark. You may not be in his target audience. (Side note: nothing is offlimits to comedians.)

To start with, I don't think I'd call an article by a political comedian an editorial, atleast not a factual one, and always take a comedian's words with a grain of salt. Sure, you can have an editorial with humor in it, but that's not this. There are, ofcourse, parallels with the United States' issue with immigrants and immigration, most notably, of the illegal variety. That's quite clear, which makes it funny and makes you roll your eyes at all the right moments. Still, comedians are very tongue-in-cheek and in your face. In some cases, they don't even believe what they're joking about. Given the Editor's Note near the top of the article, it's clear that CNN is attempting to make sure that people reading it are aware its written by a comedian as well.

I also wouldn't consider it blatant racism, given they're talking about -Zombies-. I don't care how many parallels are being drawn to the current state of affairs in the real world. He's still talking about zombies. Brain eating, undead, shambling zombies. You can't be racist against zombies.

I'm sure if, by some amazing feat of timewarp-mojo, and immigration rules and regulations were as strict (or stricter, as some would like) than as they are now, yea, we wouldn't be here. Do you know who would most likely be here though? The people that our forebearers killed through disease, and famine, and war, shoving them onto tracts of land barely large enough to accomodate them. Would that be such a bad thing?

Zomg, they're stealing mah jerbz! Meme. Couldn't help it, sorry. The trouble with this is that, while they may work jobs that are "less appeasing", the jobs are still ones that non-immigrants would work, however since we typically demand more money for our time, these jobs go to the immigrants who work for less. I think I need to steal some rose colored glasses here, because any company that hires immigrants soley to avoid certain laws and increase their profit margin can curl up in a deep dark tunnel and never crawl out. Actually, I'd gladly bury the tunnel behind them. They treat their workers like crap, don't give anything back, and use it all to line their pockets.

And how does one figure that the taxes pulled out from an illegal immigrants pay check (this is, ofcourse assuming that they're not being paid "under the table" or "off the books", neither of which taxes are taken out of because the government doesn't know about it to tax it) ease the pressure on those that are naturalized and native? This country's deficit is too large for that, and if it really eased the pressure, we wouldn't be getting taxed out our ears everytime we wanted a snickers bar. Nor would there always be talk of raising taxes.

And a misquote on Dean here. Dean said he hoped the Rosetta Stone would teach "zombie" as we'd need it. Good news, Rosetta Stone already teaches so many of the languages present in the world, I don't think they'll have to worry about "zombie" anytime soon. Don't forget that history is written by the victors, and Americans have a way of forcing their views onto others. We may not realize it, but really, we give some places no choice in the matter.

Overall, its clear that you're passionate about immigration laws, and (not completely unrelated) rascism. The few grammatical and spelling errors don't detract from the post as a whole. But there are pros and cons to each side of a debate, it may help to address both and add a weight to them. "Yea, this is a good thing about that side of the stree, but there's this over here, and its so much better because of this thing here." You don't want to completely alienate the other side, or a compromise will never be reached.

And unless you can get the joke and the humor behind a comedian's work, your response may miss the mark just as much as his humor did for you. ^.~

Sunshine and Rainbows...

So I’ve touched briefly on this subject before and I’m not shy about revisiting it and expressing my views on it.  (And of course poking at the general close-mindedness of those against it. I think that's my favorite part...) I’m not saying that everyone against it is wrong to be so, but on that same note I haven’t heard of a reason to be against it that wasn’t rooted in some fundamentally flawed translation and interpretation of a Bible passage. Nine times out of ten, they can't give any other reason.

Here, Matthew Vines breaks it down fairly well (ok, really damn well, he took time off from his college to study this) and this really deserves more publicity: The Bible and Homosexuality. He does a really good job of going through each point and line of scripture that is used time and again.

The other one out of ten times they point to the biological side of things. Which, really? It hurts us how? The heterosexual side of the population produces more offspring than they know what to do with already. I would think that those not procreating are helping just as much as those that are. And some of them are more than willing to give loving, safe homes to the children that remain without a stable home life for one reason or another.

But lets jump the rails and move more towards the actual political side of things.

Prop 8 and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) are before the Supreme Court this week (if you haven't heard this, where have you been hiding?), and apparently they're afraid of making broad, sweeping rulings (Baker, Supreme Court appears reluctant to issue broad gay-marriage ruling). Really?  Isn't that sort of, you know, your job? I understand that we're still feeling some of the backlash from Roe v. Wade, but that didn't stop you guys then. So what's the problem now? (I admittedly may not understand all of the interstices and in stuff, so maybe a little more investigation is in order.)

There's some speculation (Hogarth, Prop 8 Likely to be Repealed Narrowly; Court Hears DOMA Today) that the Justices may just dismiss the Prop. 8 case, which keeps it overturned in California by default, but affects no other state. There's also some speculation that they may actually give a ruling, but limit it to just California.

Ok, so they can not step in it when it comes to Prop 8 by avoiding that pile completely, but DOMA, that one is just way too big. There's no side-stepping it. Its denying equal protection under the law, for those in state (and in some cases country) recognized same-sex unions. While only half of DOMA is being challenged, it has sweeping consequences. Though, maybe the Supreme Court will rule that the House of Representatives don't have a leg to stand on in defending DOMA when those involved in the writing and signing of it into law have all repealed it, saying it should be struck down. Its still too early to let out that "Victory!" cry yet. (Soooooooon.)

Overall, it is looking like things will swing to the favor of equality, though not on as grand a scale as some are really hoping for. Just remember: Baby steps. =) We all know it'll get there in the next 20 years. Probably sooner. I think we're really just waiting on some of the legislatures to ah... age out. <.< Besides, patience is a virtue.

Imagine how good for the economy all those marriages between men will be for the states that allow them when they're accepted on a federal level~ We all know that they have the best, most expensive tastes. ;)

A Ray of dim Hope...

In Donna Red Wing's blog post The Bipartisan/Nonpartisan Push for Marriage Equality there shines a dim light of hope that even the Republicans are coming around to this whole same sex marriage thing.

Rather than the typical posts I've seen lately where they seem rather fatalistic and negative, this one is realistic, and a tad uplifting. Given the source she posted this blog to, her work is tended towards the more Liberal among us in a "hey, we're not dancing out here alone~!" It effectively gets the message across of the support that is coming in from both sides now, but still that there's some work to be done. It even links to another article written by a Republican and his reasons for signing onto the amicus against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Ofcourse, she also states Iowa as the state that starts the ripples outwards, though has given no examples of where this has been the case, which I would actually be quite interested in reading if this were indeed true and not just an excellent bit of imagery, wishful thinking, and hyperbole.

Overall though, the article itself is well constructed and carries its dance metaphor well and through to the end of the article.

Clearly, I'm all for this whole same-sex marriage thing, just because I think it's stupid that just because you love differently means you can't have the same benefits (and drawbacks, thank you Community Property States). I just hope that when the states do start coming around that those seeking same-sex marriages remember that Churches do not have to let you have the ceremony on their premises. And no, suing to make them will (or rather should) do no good.

Remember that little thing called the separation of church and state? Yea, that thing. Just because the states allow you to have all the same benefits of a traditional marriage, doesn't mean that the churches will recognize it. They're effectively private organizations, and may still deny you the use of their property and ministry. Be nice, thank them for their time, and then go find another Church that may allow you to use their property, or, better yet, have a friend get ordained online and have a nice ceremony in your backyard~ That sounds so much nicer. Who wants to have their ceremony in the house of those that have forsaken them for so long anyways? Really? It would only be out of spite and no way to start such a union between two people.






And on a completely unrelated note at all, I just wanted to pint this beauty of a post out: Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights Yea... No comments necessary. ;)

See no Evil, Hear no Evil...

In Drones for America an Op-Doc by Drew Christie for the New York Times; its quite clear that he's against drones for use in America. What's unclear are the exact reasons why they stand against it. The author appears to think that it would be armed drones in the skies that the government will use willy-nilly at the drop of a hat because they felt like it.

Here, let me fix that tin foil hat for you.

There's too many unanswered questions about where, how, when, and why for an informed opinion to be made of the information available. Do we really think that any drones they use here would do the same as the drones in Pakistan? I don't see that as something we the public would allow, not with the backlash that would follow. Though, I suppose the public would have to actually have to hear about drones to know about them.

Hey, let me borrow your hat for a minute, yea? Tin always went great with the black.

How are drones in the air really different than the surveillance that the government is already allowed to do? Sure, one extra button press to take out a target on the spot rather than having to call in the strike team and wait for hours before the target is taken down. But who's keeping score on that. Not like they can't already see or hear just about everything if they really wanted to, and taking out an undesirable is really just as easy as a phone call with none the wiser. Its the government.

I don't like this hat anymore. Want it back?

Between figuring out  how they're sharing the national airspace with commercial, private, and military flights, as well as figuring out rules and regulations, and exactly which model of drone they intend to use, it looks like there's still at least some work to be done, and time enough to learn about it. I'll reserve judgment until there's more information out about this new, even shinier glass world that we may be headed towards.

“Whatever, whatever. I do what I want!” - Signed: Your Loving Government

… I thought it was funny.

Due process what?

NY Times: Court Urged to Reverse a Ruling on Terror 

 This article continues the ongoing issues that arise from the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act and Judge Katherine b. Forrest's ruling that "blocked a statute authorizing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects" which the Obama Administration claims "has jeopardized its ability to continue detaining certain prisoners captured during the war in Afghanistan." An act and issue that any American that values their rights to due process and the First Amendment should keep an eye on.

It would seem that the Government feels that National Security should and does override any rights the Constitution grants. (Though, if they have enough evidence to detain you as a traitor, why not have that trial? Innocent until proven guilty anyone?)

In our Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both contain Due Process clauses. This is taken to include procedural due process, or in other words, the right to a trial (civil or criminal). With Obama's signing of the NDAA, the government is now allowed to detain Americans without this right.

No trial.

Detained indefinitely.

On the Government's say so.

Have I made that clear enough yet?

So.... why do we have a Bill of Rights again if the government can pass legislature that just take away those rights that are guaranteed by our constitution? Who is to say that those being detained are supporters or part of these terrorist groups? Right, the Government, which of course, they don't have to prove, as there's no trial. (No tinfoil hat jokes here.) Sure, sure, the detainment is only to last "until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF." but ah, given the nature of these groups, that is going to be for a very, very long time.

It would indeed seem that journalists may have a reason to fear this, despite the assurances provided by Mr. Loeb et al. that they had no reason to. As the statute suggests that mere supports could be indefinitely detained, can those that associate with these terrorists groups not be considered as supporting? If they write articles that include the groups' propaganda, could that not be taken the same way, even if the rest of the article may be refuting it? Our government has occasionally been known to have on blinders, and selective vision, seeing only what it wants to, and forget the rest until it is absolutely unavoidable anymore.

Given the legal complications with non-Americans, there's not too many who've caused a stink over this indefinite detainment and no trial provisions from Authorization for Use of Military Force. But this statute includes that Americans can be detained. On US soil. For supporting a group of people. It doesn't even limit the level of support. Which is what has these journalists up in arms.

How does this not worry you?