Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts

Friday, March 18, 2016

Voting Against the "Undesirables" - A Guest Blog Post

It's been a busy year so far...

Okay, so busy is a relative term in this case. The first two months of the year, slow months work-wise, were mostly spent engrossed in video games. Having never played much of anything past a Wii (Mario Brothers and MarioKart, for the most part), and the odd Xbox Kinnect (hello, Rise of Nightmares), mostly because of lack of ability...it was a surprise when, shortly after Christmas, we picked up a controller and suddenly it all clicked. So, after spending the better part of two months engrossed in Halo ODST and Borderlands 2, it was time to come up for air. Work picked up, it's time for (continuing) training for our first 10K, and gardening season is right around the corner. Not to mention finishing the new garage and studio space so we can work on adding something to the growing collection of paintings. Then there's the matter of this blog. This poor neglected blog.

And Hey. It's election season, in case you hadn't noticed [that it never ends, really]. And what an election season it has been, eh?
While we have not bothered to write anything here regarding thoughts and feelings on the current political climate, you can be sure to find the Twitter and Facebook account riddled with thoughts and opinions like the bullet spray from an uzi.

This past week we came across a Facebook status written by a social media buddy Sean Swanson, and it pretty much summed up one of the concerns that had been rattling around in the back of this brain with all the usual garbage. So, instead of coming up with our own post that basically reiterates what he said, we asked if we could post what he wrote as a guest blog post. He happily accepted the offer.

Sean is a super guy, by all accounts a great father and husband, who, despite serious health issues, turned his life around a year ago and since then has lost a massive amount of weight.  He works hard at maintaining a healthy lifestyle in order to mitigate the symptoms of his illness. Witnessing his transformation has been awesome. He has been an inspiration to those who strive to stay fit, and meet their personal workout and health goals. He also supplies his Facebook friends with very hilarious memes and entertaining content, in between the serious intellectual bits. He is appreciated.

In a private conversion Sean made sure to mention that what he wrote here also applies to mental illness, which we agree with wholeheartedly.

Image Source
There are a lot of things to consider this election season before stepping up to that "ballot" box. The mature and conscientious voter will do so not simply thinking of what the candidate they favor can offer them, but what he/she can offer the country and the individuals in it, as a whole; a vote not motivated by blind hatred for swaths of fellow human beings; a vote not motivated by pure self-interest; a vote not motivated by false propaganda, by celebrity cult-like following, or by indoctrination of religious or party affiliation.
A vote by the people, for the people.

Without further adieu.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Voting Against the Undesirables

I had a thought which frightened me this morning, and like most frightening thoughts it led to more frightening thoughts.

I have blood family who have told me to my face that if it's a choice between Clinton and Trump they will vote Trump. They say they don't support his hate or his rhetoric and I believe them, mostly. They say they support his views on this treaty or oppose hers on abortion, etc.
I get that. In more normal or reasonable times I would think that individual policies are legitimate reasons to vote for one candidate over the other.

But let's call it what it is. This man has a list of undesirables. Black people, Mexican people, Muslim people, gay people.

And then there's that other category, the one I'm in.

People with disabilities.

I don't look much different than an able bodied person, 9 days in 10 you couldn't tell the difference. But it's there. In my genetic code, I have cerebral palsy and substantial hearing loss and historically, people like me don't make it through the vetting process of men who espouse fascism.

Neither will my kids. They're both perfect. No disabilities of any kind. But they inherited my genes. They can and will pass down my weird mutations and undesirable traits to any children they might have.

So they go on the list. Can't have those pesky differences getting passed into the gene pool.

You might be thinking "Wait, Trump hasn't made mention of disabled persons."

But he has. Maybe not in a by line of his speeches but he has mocked disabled reporters at his rallies.

And does it matter?

He doesn't have to name off every person to hate to his supporters. They get the point. They know the Other.

"What is the cause of a pogrom? Land, domination, pre-emptive attacks - all just excuses, mundane justifications that do nothing but disguise the simple distinction.
They are not us.
We are not them."1

The fact is that if we have to choose between Clinton or Trump it is absolutely a choice of the lesser of two evils. But it's an evil of a magnitude greater than the other.

It's a choice between an opportunist who has often changed her moral standing with the siren call of the day, at best behind the times and at worst feckless, and a man who wants to label the Other.

Lots of other republicans I know have said they just won't vote if Trump is nominated. They'll abstain. In an election like this, a choice not to vote is an approbation of men like Trump. If enough people choose not to vote because they don't like either candidate much they're essentially handing the election the candidate who has so inspired such a furor of hate and his hard inner core of supporters who finally have a standard bearer for their hatred.

You will sanction him with your silence if you choose not to vote on Election Day.

Others might say "he can't change the structure of the United States, the president doesn't have that power."

Of course he can. Presidents pull in majorities for both the house and the senate every four years. It's called the coat tail effect. Essentially, congress people who wouldn't normally be electable gain office because they are in the same party of the presidential candidate and most voters vote straight ticket these days.

If you don't think a president can effect fundamental change in our nation with the backing of the house and senate just look at what President Obama accomplished in his first two years in office when he had a supermajority. Think of the harm he could have wrought, had he chosen to.

And think of that list of your neighbors, your friends, your acquaintances you chat with over the coffee pot at work, who all fall on the list of undesirables.

What makes America great is the diversity of her peoples. We are the melting pot. The bootstraps nation. The nation of refugees and outsiders effecting real and lasting change.

We are not homogenous. In point of fact, the founders of the nation came here to escape the homogenous old countries. Who only a handful of years after our nation's founding saw the rise of death camps in those old countries. And to those death camps went the list of undesirables, almost indistinguishable from the list of undesirables that Mr. Trump has presented time and time again.

We are better than this. We must be better than this.

"We are contrary creatures, us humans, but that isn't something we need be afraid of, or even much troubled by. And if you make a list of those people who worship consistency, you'll find they're one and all tyrants or would-be tyrants. Ruling over thousands, or over a husband or a wife, or some cowering child. Never fear contradiction, it is the very heart of diversity."- Steven Erikson

"We are not enemies, but friends, we must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it's must not break our bonds of affection." - Abraham Lincoln
-------------------------------------------------

1 quote from The Malazan Boo of the Fallen Series

Friday, February 21, 2014

The New Discrimination: Because Freedom Is Only For Straight People

Words can be dicey. There's no question about it. Words can be so dicey, especially in the Constitution, that sometimes they even get their definitions changed by the Supreme Court in order to make things seem like they are saying something they are not.

Today, in Arizona, a bill was passed to allow open discrimination of people, a bill that needs only the signature of the Governor Jan Brewer to be officially put on the books. There should be little doubt that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional, but in the meantime, it's something to ponder.

According to Tracey Stewart, of the Arizona Anti-Defamation League, the bill is a "state law allowing business owners to turn away gay and lesbian customers, employers to deny equal pay to women, or individuals to renege on contract obligations–as long as they claim to be doing so in the name of religion." (1) [italics mine]

Now. The First Amendment seems pretty clear, depending on interpretation. Isn't interpretation fun? Sure it isn't. More hate, intolerance and violence has been in the name of someone's interpretation of some text for over thousands of years than most care to acknowledge. But let's look at an interpretation and think about it, maybe have a conversation about it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (2)

The bolded part is the part we're going to focus on here.
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Let's break it down and look at the word 'establishment'. Now, people who hate individual freedom (and if you think that people who are gay shouldn't have the same basic rights as you, then you are against personal and individual freedom, so don't even play that game) will jump on the first definition and scream "It means Congress can't make a law preventing me from establishing a religion. But it can make laws based on my Christian beliefs. This is 'Murica!"

Another, more rational person might view this statement and see it as "Congress shall make no law in favor of a religious organization/group"

See how those two could be viewed in completely different ways? See how one makes more sense when it comes to keeping politics out of religion, and religion out of politics? Apologies, we've been studying the writings of key founding fathers and writers who influenced the forming of this country in a class called American Political Thought, and it's pretty clear they thought mixing politics and religion were dangerous.

Okay. The second part of that says that Congress cannot prohibit you from practicing your religion; meaning they cannot stop you from going to church, or prevent you from praying. They also cannot make a law requiring you to do any of those things.
Congress also cannot pass laws that will make you be a murder, or adulterer, they can't force you to worship a God that is not your own, they can not force you to be blasphemous, steal, lie or stare at your hot neighbor's ass against your will. (These are all related to things in the 10 Commandments, the principles of ethics and worship). They cannot make a law that forces you to do any of these things which would prohibit you from freely exercising the tenants set forth by, what amounts to the Constitution of Biblical Law.

As an aside, since when did being bigoted, hateful and/or intolerant to groups of people become part of the 'free exercise of religion'? Does the Bible not state to love thy neighbor as thyself (Mark 12:31) and to love thy enemy (Matthew 5:44)? So where does 'turn away those icky gays because you don't approve of their lifestyle' fall into that? *hears crickets*...we digress.

Back to it, why then do the Powers That Be (All Hail Congress) think that a law, that enables segments of the population to be discriminated against because (some) religious people don't like them, can pass U.S. Constitutional muster?

It's baffling, the ignorance of it all.

But let's look at some other issues...
First...some have hinted that the bill may deny equal pay to woman...on religious grounds. Maybe we missed that commandment or verse - 'Thy women shalt not earn equal pay...because vagina.'

That blows. Just got a pay-cut for being born with this stupid vagina. Thanks, God.

Second...How will these Christian owned businesses ID members of the LGBT persuasion?
Is entering the store with someone of the same sex the clincher. Because really, straight guys obviously do not go shopping together, duh.
or
Is it if you both "have the gay look"...and what does that even mean?
Do these gays have the gay look?

NFL player Dave Kopay (he's totally an old dude now though)
↑ GAY↑ Image Source
Boxer Orlando Cruz
↑ GAY↑ Image Source
Zachary Quinto
↑ GAY↑ 
Oh, you mean gays that are easy to pick out of a crowd like these...
Sacha Baron Cohen
Not actually gay
Carson Kressley
Totally gay
Because if someone doesn't look gay how are you going to prevent doing business with them...Arizona Christian Business Owners? Guess you could get them to talk and see if they sound LGBT. Because there's nothing like falling back on stereotypes...0_o

Personal photo taken during a tour of
Dachau Concentration Camp, 2009.
For more on the Nazi Rosa Winkel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle
How about holding hands? Shows of affection? [don't know about what you've observed but even straight females that are close friends are very affectionate with each other publicly]
Will people of the same-sex be able to hug each other in your place of business without you raising the Gay Alarm?

Maybe you should have "them" wear badges  so you can more easily signal them out, so you don't accidentally sell them some crap on your shelves made in China by children, or chemical-laden shampoo, or art supplies, or maybe they should affix a symbol to their house or door so you don't accidentally go into their big gay houses and accidentally fix their big gay furnace.

Eeek!

And think about this.
What if you, as a Christian, went into a store owned and operated by a Buddhist, or a Jew, or an Islamic, and you were denied service under suspicion of being a Christian, or because of the cross on your neck, got asked to leave and never return.
What if it was any number of non-Christian God based religions who didn't want to serve you because of who you choose to worship.
Further, religions aren't hard to create [see: L Ron Hubbard and Scientology].
Hell, the government even considers Atheism a religion (3)!
Bottom line...whose religious beliefs and when/where would it end...that's basically it.

Oh, go ahead, tell people you won't serve "the gays", put up a little sign on your door saying you won't serve the LGBT community; but don't be surprised when you end up on countless lists and websites of banned businesses and have to close down because the only people shopping at your store are the other homophobes.
Sure, you don't need that "creepy transgender person"'s business, but you probably need his/her sister's business, and his/her mother's business, and all of their friend's and family's business...because if you have a business that refuses to do business, they can always go somewhere else. After all, WalMart will welcome all of them with open corporate arms. IHop will serve them coffee just the same as they'll serve the coffee to the person at the next table twisting their little cross pendant anxiously, in fear that they "might catch the gay". You can bet that billion dollar businesses, and ones that have managed to survive in cities and towns that have undergone corporate overhauls didn't do it by refusing to serve "those people".

This may have spiraled into a tangent.

Apparently people have not thought through the implications of such a bill/law. They don't see how it could turn around and bite the very people who feel vindicated because of it right in their self-righteous ass. Who knew fear could look so ugly (okay, it's not really that shocking).

Look, nobody is making you be friends with people of the LGBT community, an exchange of money for goods and services isn't a date (at best it's a little capitalistic prostitution).
They're (rational people) asking you to "allow" "them" to buy shit from your stupid store, maybe eat some sub-par crap you threw onto a plate in your disgusting restaurant, maybe have you do a poor job fixing the gutters on their house at exorbitant prices. Freedom means not being subject to segregation, to have the freedom to go where you want, shop where you want, eat where you want, access services you want/need.

Freedom isn't just for Christians, and it isn't just for straight people, and it isn't just for white people, and it isn't just for people whose lives you approve of. Freedom (at the length any remains) is for everybody.
Maybe you're living in a different America, one that wasn't founded on the principles of working towards a nation of freedom.

It's okay, you can be scared (goodness knows how much who someone else has sex with directly affects your life in a personal and scary way) - but you should do it more tactfully, because the younger generations are watching you, learning from you, and what they are learning is that you're irrational, hateful, intolerant, and insane...and you're doing it in the name of the God you want everybody to love.

----------------------
Editorial Note: We have a lot of experience with religion, and we only have beef with the people who do bad things in its name. More on that:
Religion, You Say? We Have A View On That
Respecting Religion? We Have A View On That

----------------------
Sources and Citation:
(1) Serwer, Adam. "Arizona Passes Law Allowing Discrimination." Msnbc.com. NBC News Digital, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arizona-passes-law-allowing-discrimination>.
(2) "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>.
(3) Chumley, Cheryl K. "Atheists Incensed after IRS Grants Them Tax Exemption as Religious Group." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/21/atheists-incensed-after-irs-grants-them-tax-exempt/>.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Government Spies With Its Giant Eye...


...CAT MEMES!

It's funny how much we love freedom, but we (most of us) could care less about the government tapping our phone lines, or knowing what we look at on the internet. As a citizen with nothing nefarious to hide, we're not really concerned.

Guess that's what happens when you have very little to hide; and they've been doing it for so long that if we haven't raised flags yet then what's to worry about. They've been tapping phone lines almost since the invention of phones - research Senator McCarthy, President Truman and "Red Scare"...(you might even be able to find info on how Walt Disney was part of the fun) They started tapping phone lines almost less than 75 years after phones were invented.

Do you think they're really interested about how many cat memes you look up, or Someecard images, or that picture of you drinking half naked at your buddy's house, the Tweets about how you're horny, your Facebook status about how much you love your husband (and the subsequent Tweet about what an asshole he is) or your tit/dick pics? Probably not what they're looking for.

But, maybe if you're planning on overthrowing the government, or blowing some shit up...maybe then you don't want them to read about that.

Now, we could personally care less about the government trying to "protect" us from terrorists; but we'd wager that a lot of the people all freaked out about the government using surveillance techniques on it's citizens to try to prevent terrorism (allegedly) are the same who are absolutely outraged that terrorist attacks happen.

How do you want the government to try to prevent terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon Bombing...Ouija Boards, prayer, psychics...magic?

It's all just not surprising, the surveillance; other than it's surprising people are acting all outraged over what is pretty much old news. The protocol for surveillance was passed under the Patriot Act in 2001, and has been passed countless times by Congress. It's been common knowledge for over 10 years.

Maybe...you know...just fucking pay attention all the time, not just when you want to be outraged by something you think is the fault of the political party, that's in office, that you hate.

Tootles.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

FACT: It Is Not Illegal to Falsify News or Lie

Anybody who has been reading our blog long enough knows we have a pretty big distaste for lying. We understand little white lies happen. Everyone lies, usually it's to spare someone's feelings, but the lies that people, and the media, and the government are getting away with, and passing laws to make it easier to get away with, are heartbreaking, and a slap in the face of the word Freedom.

Having known of a case (NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS v. JANE AKRE [1]) for awhile now, from 2003 in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of media lies being protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the journalists in question not being protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, every time we hear any news these days we take it with a grain of salt.

But speaking of salt, "bath salts", a "new" meth-derived designer drug, with side effects such as chest pains, increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, agitation, hallucinations, extreme paranoia, and delusions [2], which up until a year ago was not detectable by standard drug tests, is now said not to be what made the man chew the face off of another man last month in Florida, according to drug tests by the Miami-Dade medical examiner [3].

While it may be true that Eugene wasn't on "Bath Salts", we can be pretty sure that it wasn't the majuanna that made him eat another man's face. Sure, from personal experience we can tell you that a person can get some pretty wicked munchies, but give us a fucking break. Clearly the problem was something more, such as severe mental illness that already existed, even in absence of a drug, if it was indeed only pot this guy had ingested; and who's to say that it wasn't a drug he has previously taken which had already metabolize through his system and left no remaining trace, save a taste for human face.

You just know someone, somewhere, is going to use this as an opportunity to demonize marijuana, like the addiction expert cited in an Associated Press article stating "she wouldn't rule out marijuana causing the agitation."[4]. Cauging those quick news article skimmers, those jump to conclusion junkies, to forget that any drug, including nicotine withdrawal and alcohol, are just as likely to cause said agitation...but then, those are legal drugs.

It's like the majuanna scare through propaganda of the 60's...
but now watch out kids...now it'll make you EAT SOMEONE'S FACE!

But they can say what they want, whenever they want, after all, it's not against the law to lie to the public if you own a news company. According to the "the FCC policy against falsification of the news [which] does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” [it is] simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."[5]

It's not illegal for ANYONE to lie.

Did we mention we're actually a HIGHLY decorated war veteran too, and when the time comes, we are the ones who found the cure for cancer. Also, we wrote the Bible.

Obviously none of that is true, but who the hell cares. Why give credit where credit is due when it's totally legal to make those claims. It's your right to lie.

Today in a final ruling by the Supreme Court that will likely exonerate Reverend Jim Moats, a man who was being tried under The Stolen Valour Act for lying about being a Navy SEAL in the Vietnam War and receiving a Medal of Honour, the highest award of the American military [6]. Today the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned the law, originally passed by Congress and signed in 2005, that would have found Moats guilty, stating that "[the constitution] protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace" [7]. And according to the Supreme Court we're not "degrading the value" of being a veteran, curing a disease or writing a historical text, all these accomplishments, and any others we choose to claim...nobody is getting hurt. Right?

Lies no longer exist, only "speech we detest".

Lies are protected by the first ammendment. As a matter of fact, in the New Word Communications v. Jane Akre case, "FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves."[5]

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”, cryptic words by Sir Walter Scott. Then, maybe lying was a bigger deal in his time, these days your honest lies are protected. It's almost commonplace. It's legal, so you shouldn't be surprised by the people in your life lying, the people on the internet lying, the new stations lying; and you definitely shouldn't be surprised about politicians lying, after all they're the ones who are making the rules anyway.

But what does this teach the world about us, America?
What does this teach future generations about any history we pass down. How will they know what to believe? Will they even care.
And what will become of perjury in years to come.

In the end you may be a lying bastard, but it's your God damned constitutional right, it's your FREEDOM* (to be a horrible human being)!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*unless you're gay and want to get marry; from another country that we find suspicious and/or don't like the colour of your skin, the cut of your jib or the tilt of your turban; are not Christian, or at least one of those religions that believe in the guy called God; or want an abortion for any reason at all.
Many other restrictions may apply.
Void where prohibited.
The term Freedom may not be used unless you are defending America, because no other country has freedom, even if they claim they do. No freedom is like American freedom, because we can own guns.
And sure, so can people in a lot of other countries. But we have tons of other freedoms.

Claims in this blog, while written and expressed by us, may not express our views.
And we may be lying, because hey, that's one of the freedom we do have that other countries don't.
Lying and guns.

God Bless America.
----------------------------------
Sources Cited:
(1) NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV v. JANE AKRE - Case No. 2D01-529, 2003 http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf )

(2) "Bath Salts" - Emerging and Dangerous Products, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Nora D. Volkow, M.D., February 2011, http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/messages-director/2011/02/bath-salts-emerging-dangerous-products

(3) The Cannabis Cannibal? Miami Face-Eater Didn’t Take ‘Bath Salts’, Time, Maia Szalavitz, June 27 2012, http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/27/the-cannabis-cannibal-miami-face-eater-didnt-take-bath-salts/#ixzz1z6DSrp00

(4) Lab tests find pot, not ‘bath salt’ components, in system of man who chewed on other’s face, June 28 2012, Associated Press, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/medical-examiner-only-marijuana-found-in-system-of-fla-man-in-face-chewing-attack/2012/06/27/gJQAqT8n7V_story.html

(5) The Media Can Legally Lie, Project Censored, Liane Casten, April 29 2010 http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

(6) Faking Heroism: Top Court to Rule on Stolen Valor, ABC News, Lee Ferhan, June 25 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/faking-heroism-top-court-rule-stolen-valor/story?id=16644077#.T-x__7UyngW

(7) Supreme Court ruling on Stolen Valor Act rests on 1st Amendment, LA Times, Tony Perry, June 2 2012 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/us-supreme-strikes-down-stolen-valor-act-about-military-medals.html

Monday, May 14, 2012

On The Topic Of Same-sex Marriage

Image Source
Same-sex marriage, hot topic in the media lately...we finally came to a place where we want to do a little entry about it...because we're tired of discussing it with ourselves, and getting angry over the ignorance and intolerance.

Religious people want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, as if there is any left. Divorce rates are high, infidelity is high, society has turned it into reality TV fodder, many of the younger generations (and mid-30's) aren't even wanting to participate it in because they have witnessed the marriages of their heterosexual parents, many times full of neglect, misery, abuse, hate, alcoholism, divorce and distrust.

Sanctify that.

Add the media coverage and law to the equation, and the idea of restricting marriage to being between ONLY a man and a woman becomes such a conflicting jumble of bullshit being ploughed into the minds of the public.

Many developed countries in the world recognize same-sex marriage. The few countries in the world that refuse to recognize it as a right (and in some cases don't even recognize homosexuality exists [China]) are countries many citizens of United States, that oppose same-sex marriage, would be hard-pressed to alight themselves with. Enemies, terrorists, countries not generally recognizes as developed (most of Africa and the Middle East).

We were channel surfing the other night and landed on a news show (not sure what channel it was, could have been msnbc) where a group of woman were talking about prenuptial agreements (for those who may not know what they are, while we abhor Wikipedia, in this case it'll give you the gist of what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement), and the fact that marriage is a contract agreement between two people, and that's why prenuptial agreements are so important because it helps clearly defines rights and protects both parties in the event of the dissolution of the contract (some even include clauses regarding pets).

Separation of church and state, true separation, where the religious beliefs of a group of people do not impact the overall laws of those who are not a part of that religion is part of what American was founded on - it's part of the Constitution of the United States of America. You can see here where separation of church and state, and religious freedom, TRUE religious freedom, go hand in hand. American freedom is great, as long as you have access to that ever fleeting illusive ideal, lately it seems like freedom is fine as long as the freedom you want doesn't make the religious people uncomfortable (*cough* pro-choice abortion rights and Planned Parenthood in Arizona *clears throat*)

It's fine that people whose religious beliefs dictate that marriage is between a man and a woman adhere to that belief. It is their right to believe what they want. It is not fine, or their right, to unfairly shape the lives of others, using those beliefs. Churches have a right to deny a religious ceremony, just like they can deny heterosexual ones, if they so choose, based on their pre-determined criteria. Plenty of heterosexual couples get married outside of religious institutions, in courthouses, in parks, in Vegas, by non-clergy. Why not extend those rights to any human being, of adult age, who love each other enough to enter into a binding legal contract?

And as a side note, those people who like to interject with "Well then, why don't people just marry a sandwich/sheep/vehicle/etc" you look like a fucking idiot when you indicate that homosexuals/gays, are not even the same species as other humans. But looking like an ignorant fool is also your right.

The law that was recently passed in North Carolina is a step in the opposite direction of progress, progress being equal rights, part of the definition of a developed county (you need only look at undeveloped, third-world countries to see that).

Furthermore, who somebody loves sexually is none of anybodies business (with the obvious exception of a child, or another person who is married)...at least the people entering into that permanent relationship recognize they love each other, just as a heterosexual couple getting married love each other, and are willing to make that commitment.

And finally, mind your own fucking business. If you oppose same-sex marriage just remember, it doesn't affect your life, affect your "after life", hinder your freedom (which it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT in any way), so what's your fucking problem. Just because you don't understand it, and therefore fear it/hate it, doesn't make it any less legitimate. It just means you have a narrow view of love...and meanwhile, how dare you love the person you love? Some people think them unattractive, too fat, too skinny, too bitchy, too nice, too slutty, too mentally ill, they're of a different ethnic background as you, a different financial class as you, they've already been married once, twice, maybe more, they have children...how dare you love them.

Let people love who they want, in a world full of people who increasingly find love to be an alien and distant concept, or worse, reality show entertainment, let somebody be an example of true love...they fight hard for their right to love the people they love.

~ Ivy et al
--------------------------------------------
'Same-sex marriage legislation around the world'  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world (complete with map)



Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Credit Ratings Perpetuating Poverty


Warning: this is a political/financial/economic/opinion entry, we've been known to write about whatever piques our interest and causes us to dig deeper. Today, it is this.

How things can change in eight years is amazing. Being outside of the United States for that long really shielded us from many of the issues that have grown, and started to loom, over the years.


Imagine our surprise when James (our Boyfriend), while reading forums about job prospects for immigrants in the United States, found that many people on the forum, not just immigrants, had been denied employment due to their not bad, but lack of, credit history; and then l
ast night over Christmas gift opening (yes, we celebrated three weeks late) Angry Brother mentioned how last year he had been denied a job because of his poor credit history.

Let us get this straight. 


If you lose your job and have a difficult time finding a new one, get chronically ill, or fall on some bad luck, and are unable to pay your bills on time for a few months, therefore degrading your credit rating, then you will have a harder time finding a job? If you are homeless, below the poverty level ,or new to this country - 
meaning you probably don't have much of a credit history to being with - then you have a less positive outlook for gaining employment, or bettering your economic stature?  Let's be honest, with the unemployment rate, and financial and economic climate of the United States, many of these unfortunate situations are entirely plausible.

That sounds like a dangerous downward spiral, if you ask us; but then, we're no expert.

The arguments for a credit rating check do, of course, hold some water, but in a bucket full of holes.
Yes, the ability to carry a good credit rating can be an indication of the level of responsibility and maturity of a human being, theoretically making them a good, or better, candidate for the job; however, sometimes life throws you a curve ball - the realities of life and government - and when forced to prioritize bills, chances are water, heat, electricity and food (survival) will come before a credit card payment (not survival), even though the defualt of a credit card payment will be detrimental to your credit rating much more quickly, because credit card companies are likely quicker to take action on bills in default than are utility companies.

So how many employers are actually checking credit? In 2006 the Society for Human Resource Management, "the 
largest association devoted to human resource management", polled its members and had found that since 1998 there has been an 18% increase in the amount of companies/members who do credit checks (1). According to a survey by EmployeeScreenIQ, credit checks by companies had gone up by 61% between 2011 and 2012 (2). Though some organizations will allow you to explain the situation in regards to your poor credit, if you are an adequate candidate, not all may be willing to do so.

It's not the people working at McDonalds, the guy bagging your groceries, or pumping your gas that have been, and are, hugely affected by this; it's nurses, accountants, managers, supervisors, professional people who, before the economic downturn, held jobs with responsibility and good pay, who lost their jobs and have struggled with lower paying jobs over the last few years to make basic ends meet, who fall short of being able to make credit card payments, or have been forced into unemployment. It is mainly these people who are now being denied jobs because they are not deemed mature, or responsible enough to be a manager; a bank teller, or work in a banking or lending institution as an accountant, a supervisor, or in an executive position; jobs involving security; government jobs even at state and local levels, even in some cases jobs in Universities
. Basically any job where you will have access to funds, the personal or business information of an employer, it's employees and/or customers. 


There is a perception that because someone can't handle their own money, or you have a lot of debt (for some companies that cut off mark is around $5000), they are more likely to mishandle business funds, steal, defraud, embezzle from the company, or commit identity fraud; which if you ask us is ridiculous - any person, at any income level, is just as likely to perform any of those actions. If anything an employee with some debt, who wants to improve their credit rating, would make a better employee, because they need income to be able to improve their rating.

The important thing to note is that they cannot request your information without written consent, all requests to view your credit report are logged on the report. Basically they can't secretly access a credit report and deny employment without permission front he perspective employee or record of the action. Of course if you deny them access to the information if they ask, you can guarantee you won't be getting the job. While c
redit inquiries account for 10% of your credit score, some information located indicated that credit checks from employers are considered "soft inquiries", and do not effect your rating.

The good news is that there are six states currently with new laws restricting the use of credit ratings in hiring, but 
that doesn't mean they can't still run credit checks though, the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington (3) passed laws the end of last year restricting the practice in certain industries; and currently there are about a dozen additional states with legislation proposed and pending. Believe it or not there are actually law makers against restricting hiring based on credit reports; that means they want to make it harder for people to get jobs simply because of what might appear to be poor personal financial behavior and skills. For all the other states with no restrictions on the books, you can be denied a job for something as minor as manager of a small department store.


What's next? Medical records to make sure you're not sick too much, not "mentally ill", or have a history of health problems? 


At the end of the day it's just discrimination, another loss of freedom, another marker on the road to stripping away opportunity, at the hands of the people voted into office, and the people who have authority. The trick will be if it deviates, it's never too late to turn back; it's all the more reason people should be more educated, and aware, of what the people they vote into
any office really stand for. Let the actions of the elected/hopefuls, let their history, their standards for human rights and freedom, be used as a credit report to determine their ability to stand office and represent the people of the community, the states and our country.


Sources and Citation:




Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A Word On Bullying

You'd probably imagine we have a lot to say about bullying, but today we have relatively little to say...blame emotional exhaustion from writing the last post we did.

We were victims of bullying for years; we had food thrown at us on the school bus, we were pants-ed walking down the aisles of the bus, people used to make fun of our ill fitting clothes openly in school because our garage sale pants were always too short, being tall and poor was a curse. They used to call us Titanka, ask us where the flood was, shove us, trip us, taunt us and make us hate ourselves more than we already hated ourselves just from dealing with our every day home life.

Only once we fought back. On the school bus home a boy who used to say the most horrible things to us and make us cry was taunting us from the seat in front of us, and we finally had enough of it from him, so with burning anger, as he turned to face the front of the bus, we took our trapper keeper and pile of school books, and cracked him over the head with the stack. He hardly ever made fun of us again, but he was only one of many, over many years. Other than being physically different and poor, we've never understood why we were a target of bullying, we were quiet, kept to ourselves and had few friends.

You'd think trying to stop bullying in school would be a cut and dry issue, but it just seems like the hate in the world is getting worse. Look at the examples the adults give to the younger generations. You need only turn on the news to hear about violence inflicted on others for merely being different, or see the names Matthew Shephard (victim), Jason Gage (victim), Steven Hoskins (victim), Linda Weston (perpetrator)..and so many more, to see where today's youth are learning to bully. They are learning it from adults.

So many are quick to blame movies, television and video games, instead of taking responsibility for allowing this to happen, like the latest special exception to Matt's Safe School Law...a stark example of how even some of our lawmakers, ADULTS, can't recognize that intolerance and bias is the ROOT of bullying. Bullying is not something generally done for no reason.

Thankfully from what we can gather from news reports of the last twenty-four hours (1), the version of Matt's Safe School Law that will ultimately pass will be the one that doesn't include the "special exception in the law for bullies who have “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction (2).” <- HATE CRIME, which is "a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias (judgement) against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin." [source: National Institute of Justice http://nij.gov/topics/crime/hate-crime/welcome.htm#note1]
They were going to write aproval of a HATE CRIME in a bill of law. What.The.Fuck.
This bring to light a quandary of issues that it's hard for us to wrap our head around...how adults can honestly put words into a bill making it okay to bully if it's motivated by RELIGIOUS or MORAL reasons. Sure, the bible is full of examples hate crimes...but we should be better than that. Shouldn't we?

That line, had it been included, would have created a loophole the size of which an entire country can squeeze through...don't you think? Of course you can catch our drift.

Matt's Safe School Law? You ask. Don't know what we're talking about?

Here's some news clips.

Say what you will about shows like The Daily Show with John Stewart, and The Colbert Report...sometimes in life it take a humous angle to a serious topic to bring to light the obvious seriousness of the issue, and it's getting to the point that the pain of reality is so...painful...that if we don't find a way to laugh at it, we might as well give up now. There can be seriousness within humour.
If you'd rather hear it straight...sans humour....

We want to applaud people who aren't afraid to stand up against bigotry and hate, to stand up for what they believe in when it is in the best interest of all humans, not just the interest of Special Interest, for without these people we would have no change. 

(1) http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/15/Mich_Bullying_Bill_to_Drop_Religious_Exemption/
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-senator-slams-new-bullying-legislation-video/2011/11/04/gIQAaGHAmM_blog.html

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

And now for something completely different or ... a blog of a different colour.

As I stood in the shower contemplating the political "warfare" waging over House and Senate control in the States last night as the days poles were closing, and weighing the implecations of Republican control, I was struck my an analogy that I just had to share. It's a pretty loose analogy, so hang on.


I have not been paying much attention to the election and it's candidates, not since BP plugged the oil geyser in the Gulf this past summer. The shift from that disaster to the mid-term election disaster, with it's constant back-talking, back-stabbing, back-stroking, propaganda-pumping, paranoia-feeding media spew of the opposing political parties, got to be too much; I also canceled my cable. Turns out I got a lot of my news and current events from cable, mostly John Stewart's The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report, and though I still maintain my level of Rachel Maddow worship, I've been too busy, even for Rachel:(





People (okay, Americans) complain about Obama, about what he has or hasn't accomplished, whether those things are good accomplishments or bad; and so this midterm election they were hell bent on calling in the reinforcements (a.k.a. Republicans) to save the proverbial day.


When it comes down to it they gave Obama 2 years, of his 4 year term, to turn things on it's head, and if we're honest they didn't even give him 6 months until they started vomiting their crap through the airwaves. Meanwhile they afforded Bush 8 years of destruction, and I bet they'd love to have him back, but I digress.


The funniest part about this is I am going to provide a sports analogy. Seeing as how I have a slight (Ha!) detest for sports, this amazed me last night as I shampooed my hair, that I would use sports concepts for anything. I guess constant exposure leads to osmosis.


Anyway, the panic that most Americans appear to be expressing (at least from what I've gleaned from FB, Twitter and a very short list of articles over the past few months) is akin to panicking halfway through the 2nd quarter of "the big game", when your coach (your country), who has no confidence in your ability to "win the game", therefore sends in re-enforcements. By the way, my mental picture of these re-enforcements are like flying monkeys being sent out the castle tower by the Wicked Witch of The West in the Wizard of Oz, but that's just me.  And never mind the implications of the Wicked West. What?




The sport analogy makes no sense on certain levels, I'll poke it with a stick till it's dead because the implication that Americans are a team at all seems laughable to me. After all, are Republicans and Democrats really on the same team?  I mean they may be on the same team as a country, but it's a country divided.  Pretty much always has been as far as I can tell. That's why I don't live there anymore...well, one of them anyway.


The problem is that they'll never know what the outcome of the game could have been, if they'd just given Obama a chance to play till the end.  I have a strong feeling that now that there is some (okay, a lot of) Republican pull, anything that happens, regardless if it was on Obamas agenda in the first place, regardless if the outcome had been the same with a Democratic controlled House and Senate, as opposed to a new Republican-heavy rule, will just end up in the credit of the Republicans.  Much like Bushes fuck-ups ended up in the lap of the Democrats at the end of his eight year tyranny.  Don't think it's tyranny?  You clearly weren't paying attention or don't know the meaning of 'tyrant".


My main point?  Do I have one? Oh yeah. People yell for change, but they can't handle the change (or is that the truth?).  They get to half-time and freak right out, calling for the monkeys to fly in to save the day, but in the end the monkeys were what shit all over everything anyway.  But that's my opinion.


P.S. For those of you following my blog for the juicy "man-hating" (I don't hate men), single-girl, on-line dating stories; I apologize.  A girl needs to broaden her horizons...AND needs a date. :)

Friday, October 15, 2010

So I've been under a rock...

So, you must have heard about all the Chilean miners that have finally been rescued from the depths of the earth (yesterday?), right?  Me too.  Only I've only been hearing about it for about three days.  Apparently these men and women had been trapped for two months.

Now, if you've known me on Facebook or followed my blog briefly in it's infancy a few months back (when I used to write about actual current events) you know that I am usually all up in the news.  Apparently, since I have canceled my cable my life has been akin to living under a rock.

Makes me wonder what else I have missed...someone should fill me in.  Or I should start paying more attention to my tried and true online news sources.  You know what though?  It's awfully comfortable under this rock.



Here's a totally unrelated picture.  
I posted a picture of the other one, so I felt guilty.
This is one of my "Noodles", not quite as adorable as "Mehitable", but he makes up for it in personality.

Anyone else notice the article about the Chilean Miners from The Vancouver Sun has F'N Justin Beiber (<- read my blog entry where I get my hate on for JB, and other things that piss me off) up in the corner slated to appear in Saturdays paper?  We need to replace him with the next 'tween sensation...I'm sick of "Beiber fever" everywhere I turn.  I don't follow it but when they shove it down your throat it's hard not to notice.