An Effective Way to Prevent Sexual Assault

I recently came across this list after a friend posted it to Facebook. Great tips here.

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are committing a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Rape is constructed as a "woman's problem" and are told that they are able to prevent rape by taking certain precautions or acting or dressing a certain way. The truth is, women are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by someone they know, someone they trust. It is not a problem we can fix by telling women how to avoid it, because it is not just a "woman's problem". To sum it up, I love this list.

  *Edit*

Another list I love is Denim Day's list of reasons people excuse rape (and excuse not reporting it). You can find the list here.

An interesting snippet: See a pattern emerging here? No, me neither. We excuse rape if she's a "bad girl." We excuse rape if she's a "good wife." We excuse rape if her clothes are too difficult to remove. We excuse rape if her clothes are too easy to remove. We excuse rape if he's a man. We excuse rape if the victim is serving time. We excuse rape if the victim is serving our country. In short, we excuse rape. And Denim Day's 12 excuses are hardly an exhaustive list: Off the top of my head, I'd also add "She was transgender" and "We must protect the reputation of the Catholic Church." I imagine a list of all the sexual assault scenarios that are never discounted, disbelieved, or brushed under the rug would be much, much shorter.

Again, ssoooo true. I think I'd be interesting in bringing Denim day to my campus next year, I will have to ponder this. The fact that other people are taking these initiatives at least gives me hope after the situation concerning a Texas cheerleader.

Ps: Yes, my stumbleupon keeps bringing up articles about rape and society's horrible way of addressing it. I think it's trying to make me depressed now, because it used to give me cute pictures of baby elephants.

Vermont's Universal Healthcare

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Not to spam my blog with Rachel Maddow, but I encourage you to watch this video because it gives you a look into why Vermont is trying to pass Universal Healthcare.

I am a libertarian, though I have expressed doubts from time to time. I'm also a humanitarian. The reason I'm a libertarian is because I believe in personal liberty, freedom, rights, and equality. Yes, the ability to run a private business with minimal government intervention is included in that. But healthcare makes it a much more complex situation. Shouldn't universal healthcare not impact my legitimacy as a true libertarian? I want equality and freedom: couldn't that include equality in treatment, not based on your social class or economic standing? And couldn't that include freedom from being denied healthcare because you don't have health insurance? health insurance is taking over healthcare, and that's not promoting a free market at all. I want to protect people from government intrusion, yes, but that doesn't mean I think corporations should have the ability or right to dictate people's lives and health.

Take the movie John Q as an example: his son was unable to receive a heart transplant even though it would save his life. True, they didn't kick him out onto the streets, but he was going to die nonetheless. How can we accept living in a society where this is acceptable? I do not have healthcare right now, I won't for quite a few months until my mother gets another job. Sure, I might not be left to die.. but they'll refuse to fix a broken arm? Should I be left to try to make my own cast? If I get a fever I won't go to the hospital because I know that they'll turn me away, or I'll know I can't afford it. So I could just stay home, and end up dying from a fever. I could still be alive if I just had health insurance or more money or if I didn't have to pay for school on top of it. So, on one hand, how can you say health insurance is not a right? Yes, it's a "service", but it directly dies too people's lives. Their right to live in general, their right to live an acceptable life. Just as it's a state interest to keep orphans off the street, shouldn't it be a state interest to keep people from dying of curable diseases in their homes? (or on the streets as well, to be fair). This isn't even unprecedented, to see adequate healthcare as a right, it's qualified as a right under international law. I'm not saying I think Vermont's approach is the best option, I just am curious about how it will play out. I'm still not entirely convinced that whatever method they're proposing (specifics are not clear) will provide the best standards of care. I know publicly run nursing homes have many drawbacks, but then again so do private ones. But I don't think that's what this bill will do, private hospitals won't be taken over, patients' bills will just be covered.

I have yet to see a libertarian alternative that would offer universal healthcare. I think people's health shouldn't be negotiable with money, it's their health. While in most cases a free market approach is best, I just cannot see how it would ensure everyone receives adequate healthcare. And our current approach to health care builds up these health insurance companies, which rip people off. If it truly was free market, it would be between doctors and patients.. but the insurance companies get in the way and raise costs for patients and often refuse to cover procedures. I hate insurance companies. I hate how they are employer based, and I hate how people end up untreated and undiagnosed with illnesses because they don't have health insurance or their health insurance won't cover it. I hate how the cost of healthcare is rising so dramatically. People's lives are hanging in the balance.

If an alternative is offered, I'd gladly consider it. In the meantime, I hope Vermont's bill passes so I can at least see how it goes. If I lived there I would support it as well, even if it directly impacts me no matter the outcome. Because the alternative is me hoping I don't get sick or injured the next few months.

Exactly What I've Been Thinking

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Compulsory Sexual Orientation in General.

 I'm currently working on a narrative/identity paper for one of my classes. The class revolves around feminist, critical race, and queer theories. So I picked queer theories to revolve my paper around, with a little feminist theory thrown in there. Instead of just copying and pasting the second paragraph, which I think is the most important, I'll sort of paraphrase it and explain it in a different way. This will make it less jargony, less reliant on quotes from the readings I used, and more understandable to someone who hasn't studied these topics already.

The second paragraph comes in after I explain how I lack a proper "sexual orientation" label. Although I am thinking of going by pansexual, but in general I'm still not entirely sure what my feelings are and what I want from relationships. Not that it matters at this point anyways, haha. But what really struck me was this idea that heterosexuality is socially constructed. Under patriarchy, heterosexuality has been constructed as the dominant "identity". It's historically been used to tie women to men all their lives, to take their sexuality from them (their freedom to chose who they want to be with, romantically or sexually, etc) and to force it on them (arranged marriages, rape, pressured into non-arranged marriages, etc). So, heterosexuality has become the dominant "identity". Even people who are completely accepting of LGB(P)(A) people believe it's the dominant identity, most people are heterosexual. Or are they really? Hasn't heterosexuality as a norm been passed down through generations? So how do we know that it truly is the norm outside of a patriarchal, heterosexist society? We don't. To expand on this, the very measurement of "sexual orientation" has been constructed as the primary way to distinguish which gender someone is predisposed to fall in love with or chose to be with. But sexual orientation truly is only about sexual attraction, not romantic attraction or emotional attraction. Though many people have chosen to use it to describe all of them, there are still people who end up being "panromantic heterosexual". Isn't our view of how important sexual attraction is socially constructed and cultural? After all, romantic attraction can develop into sexual attraction as well, the panromantic heterosexual may easily end up sexually attracted to the same-sex romantic partner they chose. How would that person's identity predict that?

But really what I found most important is this idea that since heterosexuality as a dominant identity has been socially constructed, then the subsequent other identities are also constructed. Do we need these terms? If we didn't  have patriarchy and heterosexism, and if people didn't assume people were heterosexual, would we have to distinguish people into groups? Could people just be people? Could I just continue with my life, not having to think about what my sexual orientation is as if it defines me? But for now I can't not think about it, because right now I have to communicate with people about such things or they assume I'm straight. If I inform them that I am not straight then they assume I'm bisexual. If I tell them I am not bisexual, then I'm gay. But I'm not gay (for right now) so what does that leave them with? Sure, I can say I'm pansexual, but am I really? Or did I just decide to use it as a label, which really says nothing more about me than the fact I may be sexually attracted to men and to women, and to androgynous people and transgender/transsexual people as well. Maybe. I think it's more likely to say that I'm "other, non-straight" as if it's important to know. It says nothing else, really. Maybe instead of picking a label I should ask other people why they are living their lives by the label  they chose. Yes, "chose".

A Paradox

 I found this while stumbling today and thought I would share it:

[A man condemned to be hanged] was sentenced on Saturday. "The hanging will take place at noon," said the judge to the prisoner, "on one of the seven days of next week. But you will not know which day it is until you are so informed on the morning of the day of the hanging."
The judge was known to be a man who always kept his word. The prisoner, accompanied by his lawyer, went back to his cell. As soon as the two men were alone, the lawyer broke into a grin. "Don't you see?" he exclaimed. "The judge's sentence cannot possibly be carried out."
"I don't see," said the prisoner.

"Let me explain. They obviously can't hang you next Saturday. Saturday is the last day of the week. On Friday afternoon you would still be alive and you would know with absolute certainty that the hanging would be on Saturday. You would know this before you were told so on Saturday morning. That would violate the judge's decree."
"True," said the prisoner.
"Saturday, then is positively ruled out," continued the lawyer. "This leaves Friday as the last day they can hang you. But they can't hang you on Friday because by Thursday only two days would remain: Friday and Saturday. Since Saturday is not a possible day, the hanging would have to be on Friday. Your knowledge of that fact would violate the judge's decree again. So Friday is out. This leaves Thursday as the last possible day. But Thursday is out because if you're alive Wednesday afternoon, you'll know that Thursday is to be the day."
"I get it," said the prisoner, who was beginning to feel much better. "In exactly the same way I can rule out Wednesday, Tuesday and Monday. That leaves only tomorrow. But they can't hang me tomorrow because I know it today!"
... He is convinced, by what appears to be unimpeachable logic, that he cannot be hanged without contradicting the conditions specified in his sentence. Then on Thursday morning, to his great surprise, the hangman arrives. Clearly he did not expect him. What is more surprising, the judge's decree is now seen to be perfectly correctly. The sentence can be carried out exactly as stated.

Appointed Dictators and the Poor

Watch this video from the Rachel Maddow Show:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are two separate problems I'd like to address separately, beginning with Catherine Ferguson. I'm not going to lie, I teared up when I saw the video of the girls being arrested. This is one of the only schools in the country that gives a care at all if you're poor and have to support a child all while trying to graduate from High School. That school is giving them a future. But Robert Bobb is threatening to take it away to make budget cuts? That is disgusting. Of all the schools that could have been singled out to be demolished, it had to be that one. They have a future ahead of them that may be destroyed if they do not have that school. But the state of Michigan, its governor, and Robert Bobb do not care. If they want Detroit to improve as a city, destroying one of the few schools that help poor young mothers get an education is not going to do that. It not only has a 90% graduation rate, but a 90% graduation rate for teenagers with children. It's not a dysfunctional school, it is working.
The second issue is about Benton Harbor, which also was assigned a.. I don't even know the proper title, overseer?.. to replace the city's elected officials. This one decided that it was best to sell the city's public beach park to a private business to develop a golf course. A very expensive golf course, that probably nobody in the city of Benton Harbor can afford. You may so, oh well, it can provide more jobs, boost business. But you have to ask what businesses will move in, if any. It won't be a business that is developed by a citizen of Benton Harbor, it will be a chain business with a financial sector somewhere else, maybe even out of the state. So these businesses will only take money out of Benton Harbor while hiring citizens for minimum wage. This decision isn't being made for the interest of the people of Benton Harbor at all. And this seems to be a common problem with Imminent Domain, though I recognize this is different. But in both cases, the land that is meant to be for the public good is privatized. The government removes residential areas and then sells it to private business, stating that its for the common good because it will provide jobs and increase revenue for the city. But in the meantime the poor people are evicted from their homes. Homes that will be demolished to build a mall. Yet, without it urban development may be extremely difficult, and it does bring in revenue and does benefit the city. But it benefits  people disproportionately. Rich people will not be removed from their homes, only poor areas where the houses can be paid off for cheap. Houses that are often rented or under mortgage still, and even if the government pays market value people may still end up on the streets unable to afford new housing.

Iowa Under Attack Again

Last fall election Iowa voters decided to fire three of its Supreme Court Justices over the "controversial" ruling that legalized gay marriage in this state. If that wasn't enough, now the Iowa House is trying to impeach the rest of the Justices. They claim that they violated the separation of powers by legislating from the bench, a common criticism for judges who rule that the government has no right to get  involved in people's private lives.

According to the article, most Iowas are opposed to this idea. Which I find hard to believe given that Iowa voters practically did the same thing last fall. I suppose I have nothing else to add, besides I really dislike Iowa's House, but am very grateful for the Iowa Senate.

Fair Trials and Liability

I’m going to start with a brief lesson on substantive versus procedural justice. Stealing the example my professor today used when explaining the difference, imagine a teacher creates a test. The test is graded without knowing whose test is whose, all the questions are the same, each grade is worth the same points, all around it is equal. That’s procedural justice, it follows the rules and is equal. However, everyone in the class fails it. Obviously there is something wrong, the teacher’s instruction was inadequate or the questions were unfair. Maybe even everyone in the class is dumb or didn’t put enough effort into it, but either way there probably should have been more done to prevent every single student from failing it. The professor says “too bad, I followed the rules. It’s fair. Deal with it” and the students cannot do anything. Sure, it’s procedural justice. It is not Substantive Justice, however. It is not fair, equal maybe, but not fair.

The teacher in the example said “too bad, deal with it” and that is exactly what the Supreme Court said to a man who served 14 years in prison and was then found innocent. Even though it was obvious that prosecutors hid evidence, evidence that was on track to cost an innocent man his life, it was not enough to find the District Attorney’s office liable. They sentenced him to death, took 14 years of his life away from him, yet they are in no way at fault? The fact they hid evidence such as witness testimony clearly shows there was “deliberate indifference”. When my Professor discussed this case in my class, she seemed to think this was substantive injustice, but not procedural injustice. Maybe I misunderstood her. I don’t see how this wasn’t procedural injustice as well, unless they intentionally ignore evidence every time. She also said that the Supreme Court usually makes decisions based off of procedural justice, not substantive. The last time the courts really paid attention to the latter was during the civil rights era, with cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. This leads me to two questions. Should our Supreme Court focus again on substantive justice as well as procedural, or stick with the current system? Also, if prosecutors intentionally hide evidence from a jury, and the defendant is then found guilty and executed, should the prosecutors be held liable or criminally responsible in any way?

Day of One-Sided Dialogue

The Day of Silence is coming up and will be held on April 15th. I don't have classes that day anyways, so I will not be participating this year (although not being able to talk to anybody will probably help me get more work done...). What's more interesting this year is not DoS, however. It is the Day of Discussion, previously titled the Day of Truth, which is being held on the 18th.

I am under the impression that The Day of Truth is being sponsored by a different organization than previous years. A reason for the name change may be due to the recent spike in publicity of suicides committed because of anti-gay harassment. Or they simply don't want to seem as adversarial, but it's really just a sugar-coating. It is being depicted as an opportunity for christian students to "freely" engage in dialogue with others about the love of Jesus and the truth about the bible. Their site states "Focus on the Family firmly believes that the truth will rise to the surface when honest conversations are allowed to happen." The problem here is that it has the same problems that the Day of Truth has. On the surface it may seem more accepting, open for those who support DoS to also provide their viewpoints and express their beliefs. But it's not. It is meant only for those who oppose the DoS to continue attacking the DoS and gay students in the name of religion. They are not being open to hear about how gay people are born the way they are, or that they are at a much higher risk of suicide, depression, and other mental health problems due to the harassment and bullying they are much more likely to face everyday. They claim to balance out the "homosexual-themed" day by engaging in discussion instead of silence. Seems pretty adversarial to me. It's not called the day of truth, yet they are still not being open to other religious opinions or even other interpretations of the bible.

They are also trying to hide under the guise of also trying to prevent bullying, stating "His [Jesus] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God's Word says." Yet, the Day of Silence is not about acceptance of homosexuality, it is about preventing harassment of LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT. So when a student goes to school on the 18th and gets bombarded by students participating in DoT (sorry, DoD) they don't interpret it as a loving message. The message that is being sent is "The pain you go through and the homophobia you face everyday could be avoided if you accepted Jesus into your heart and stopped being gay". That's the only message, pure and simple. And another side note, I caught a girl on their video ask "Does God really have any good advice for us in there?" in reference to relationships and marriage.Which kind of made me laugh because I know in one part of the bible one advice it gives about marriage is that you should marry your rapist, although to be fair I don't know if that's in the new or old testament. 

I also found a rather creepy part of their website "Jesus first reminded his followers that God made us in His own image, male and female. Our masculinity or femininity reflects something of God’s character. Justice and mercy. Strength and beauty. Initiative and response. These complementary qualities show us something about who God is." So their website is not only homophobic but sexist as well. It's not that I am opposed to students being able to have free speech in High School, in fact I always wished it was more open to free speech (although there is a significant different between this day being held after the Day of Silence and a similar event being held on the actual day, the latter I do have a problem with). I still retain the right to complain about the content of that speech, though.

Candi Cushman of Focus on the Family has been quoted stating "What is freedom of speech, after all, but a guarantee of the right to have dialogue?" which it is not. It takes two or more people to have a dialogue, and a dialogue is not their intention at all. They want to be allowed to preach. Which, whatever, is okay to an extent in public schools. But as soon as a student wants a student acting liek this to back off, they better back off. It's not a restriction on the fundamentalist's freedom of speech, it's a protection of the other student's right to an education and not be harassed. I also have a problem with sugar-coating things, like saying you're praying for atheists instead of saying they're going to hell. Pretty much the same thing, in fact sometimes I feel like I prefer the latter. 

*note* I'm glad that I now know what I am talking about. When my friend first brought it up to me I thought it was a post-Day of Silence event that was meant to vocally educate others about harassment to break us out of the silence, so I was kind of confused about why they were putting such a religious slant on it. How embarrassing.

In Soviet Russia, cows milk YOU

I gave into conformity recently and began using Stumbleupon. So far I love it, and thought I'd share something stumbledupon here.

• Feudalism: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
• Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.
• Bureaucratic Socialism: Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.
• Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
• Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
• Real World Communism: You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most “ability” and who has the most “need”. Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.
• Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.
• Perestroika: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the “free” market.
• Cambodian Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
• Militarianism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
• Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
• Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
• Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
• British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheeps’ brains and they go mad. The government doesn’t do anything.
• Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
• Pure Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
• Pure Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
• Capitalism: You don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.
• Enviromentalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
• Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently – aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
• Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

What I find interesting about these analogies is that America is a mix of Bureaucracy and Representative Democracy, and mostly Bureaucracy. Someone in the comment section also added this: 
"American Capitalism: You have two cows. Someone who has a million cows floods the market with milk. You are forced to sell your cows to a shell company secretly owned by the man who now has 2 million cows. The man with 2 million cows donates 100 cows to politicians who pass laws that make it all but impossible for you to get into the cow market. You now work for the man with 2 million cows and use your money to buy milk from him. You are thankful to have a job and you think it’s nice that he donates some milk to charity."

Someone also added "In Soviet Russia, cows milk YOU," which is perfect. Hence the title.

My Healthcare Problem

I've always been confused about what the answer to the healthcare crisis could be. So for the most part I avoided the discussion altogether. But now the problem seems to be getting very personal. Because of the union issues in Wisconsin, my mother faces having to spend a lot more for her medical insurance since she works in the public sector. She probably cannot pay for it. My sister also faces her family losing medical insurance, though I'm sure Badger care will cover her because she's pregnant, as well as her baby. Then again I do not know for sure how the Badger Care system works. I also do not know if that will be Scott Walker's next target.

As a libertarian, I believe in small government. So, libertarian me thinks the government should not have a role in enforcing any price restrictions on insurance, it also should not be a provider of insurance. Or maybe libertarian me only thinks that about the federal government. Yet, humanitarian me believes people should always have proper access to medical care and a doctor. Why should people's health be effected simply because they do not have money? Libertarian me answers: because the free market economy operates on money, people won't provide healthcare for free, services are never free. Maybe private organizations can make up for the discrepancy (but then that would just drive up the cost..).

And according to International Human Rights law... the government has an obligation to ensure equal access to health care. Yes, I am a Libertarian. But I also believe in International Laws. I do not have an answer for how to solve the healthcare problem: I don't know who should provide it or who should pay for it. I am only able to recognize the problem with the current system. Maybe in time I can pinpoint all the factors that are causing the problems, and with that knowledge develop some sort of theory of a solution. More realistically, though, there isn't a solution at all.

The Ugliness of Racism

“According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography,” said Pennsylvania Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalf in a statement. “The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.” 



Throughout history, new groups of immigrants
have always been racially targeted.



This piece of legislation, as well as a second racist anti-immigration bill from Arizona is blatantly attacking American freedoms that have been in our constitution for decades.

The lawmakers who are trying to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants believe the legislation will stand up against constitutional scrutiny. Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger disagrees, “This issue has been raised and litigated in our history in every instance in a racial context. That is why we wanted to have a simple, clear, definitive constitutional rule. There’s absolutely no indication the Supreme Court would have any interest in reexamining it. It would get tossed out of court early.”

They are arguing that this important segment of the 14th Amendment should be taken out because they fear illegal immigrants are "abusing" it by having their children born in the US to ensure their US citizenship. I'm going to make an awkward comparison, this reminds me of the federal government suspending habeas corpus in order to find terrorists (or rather, imprison and torture them for extended lengths of time because they don't have evidence). Arguments are that we should suspend constitutional rights in the name of safety. These racist legislators are arguing we should suspend constitutional rights (demolish, actually) in the name of saving.. money? Neither case is acceptable, because we have constitutional rights for a reason. We cannot completely ignore constitutional rights whenever the state thinks it is fitting. The reason why we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect ourselves from the state. If we allow them to ignore these rules in one or two cases, then the rules will end up being ignored completely.

I had the opportunity to attend a conference this weekend about refugees from countries such as Bosnia, Sudan, Guatemala, and Thailand. The woman from Bosnia said her family was very grateful that their youngest son was born in the U.S. I wonder if these politicians acknowledge that people such as her, who were forced to flee their country to see refuge, will be impacted by the bill. Probably not, because it is pure racism from people who believe our country is under attack from Mexican Immigrants. Pure racism. I looked around the room at the conference, and saw people of an array of diverse backgrounds; races, religions, cultures, and ethnicities.

I thought it was beautiful. Diversity truly is beautiful. And America is different from most other countries because of it. Yet, this diversity is seen as a threat. It is seen as something that must be stopped. I don't understand how they don't see the beauty in it as I do.

A Good Change Among the Bad.

Great news!

The Obama Administration has decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in two court cases. They previously were going to file for appeal when two courts found DOMA unconstitutional.

I wrote an essay about how DOMA is illegal for a class last semester. It not only violates the bill of rights and the 14th Amendment, but also the Full Faith and Credit Clause. States have to recognize things such as marriage licenses created in other states. DOMA made an exception for gay marriage, which makes the law discriminatory in itself. The act also made the federal definition of marriage "between a man and a woman" which violates states' rights. States were unable to fully implement marriage licenses when they wished to, because couples were unable to be recognized by the federal government.

Beyond the technical constitutional things making such laws and policies unconstitutional, the Defense of Marriage Act is simply wrong and harmful. People deserve to be treated as humans, and that includes being able to marry who they love. The government has no business making moral judgments based on who people are attracted to. If two consenting people wish to get married, what gives the government the authority to tell them no? Certainly not precedents from the Supreme Court, such as Loving v Virginia. And certainly not the constitution.

Obama has slipped up a lot throughout his term; at least with this he can walk away from office with something I can be proud of him for. I just hope the act is able to officially be overturned.

[Source]

The 14th Amendment

ps: I had a lot of other blog entry topics jotted down, so those will go up next week when I have to give them the time they deserve.

Walker's Political Agenda

 Wisconsin's new governor, Dictator [Scott] Walker is pushing through a bill that would demolish all public sector unions with the exception of firefighter, police, and state trooper unions. It would also more than double how much employees must pay for health insurance and increase how much they must pay for their pension. He then alerted the National Guard about potential unrest and protests. This is all in the name of fixing Wisconsin's budget. The result has been tens of thousands of protestors in Madison. Schools have also been cancelled across the state because of teachers calling in sick. State Senators fled the state to delay the vote on this bill, so it is currently at a standstill.

           First reaction: The problem is the health insurance system, so why punish public employees and force them to take on the burden? Especially when this bill would require many poor public employees to drop their health insurance.

           Second reaction: This is not to fix a budget, but rather fulfill a political agenda in two ways.

Union organizations are some of the top outside contributors to elections in Wisconsin and mostly for the democrats; others are corporations that support Republicans. If this attack on Unions is successful in WI, then it will be successful in other states. This is a political move to break up organizations that fund democrats, which is why fire fighters, police, and state troopers are exempt from the bill, those unions supported Walker.  
Also, we do not even have a budget crisis. Walker claims that he must fix a $137 million deficit, when he recently spent over $140 million supporting special interest. While Walker is blaming how much it costs to pay public employees, 2/3 of corporations don't pay taxes in Wisconsin.

First off, I am not a Democrat. As a Libertarian I find this political manipulation disgusting. The fact that people don't see this manipulation, and continue to blame public employees, is also disgusting. Or maybe they realize what is happening, yet do not care for the simple reason they dislike unions. I dislike unions, I want to see reform. But full out annihilation of public sector unions is not a reasonable option.

I applaud all the state senators that fled the state. Many argue that they should return to negotiate, but it is the Governor who refuses to negotiate. It is up to the people of Wisconsin to stand up against this assault if we want any hope of stopping this extreme legislation. Of course Scott Walker doesn't care, he says "If anything, I think [protests in Madison] made the Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate stronger, they're not going to be bullied. They're not going to be intimidated." Protestors in Madison are apparently bullies, yet what he is doing is purely in the name of democracy. He thinks that because he was voted into office he has free reign to force through any legislation he wants. I personally do not tolerate this, does the rest of Wisconsin?



Ps: Thanks for the support from Egypt!