Simple Views

On Santorum

2012-02-26T16:56:00.004-08:00

As funny as they may be, I truly think that the Santorum jokes are counter-effective. I don't like making him into a joke because I believe that he is a very real threat.I would like to believe that there is no reason to fear such a person as Santorum. But he was elected to the Senate more than once. He has a lot to say to people who like to parrot sound bytes without thinking about what they mean. Every day he becomes more ludicrous, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be feared. There are a lot of authoritarians who will swallow everything that Santorum has to say without tasting it first. This laughingstock has quite a following now according to polling numbers and primary results. I don't fear him near as much as the idea that he's awakening in the ignorant masses.We make progress towards tolerance just to have someone like this come along and knock us back into the 1950s. The problem is that each ridiculous laughingstock is worse than the last. And while they may seem unelectable, it degrades politics. Instead of moving America forward, liberals have to spend their time defending America against conservatives fighting each other to see who can make the most offensively regressive legislation.

It's not about him necessarily but what he represents: he's a crowbar for the religious right. They don't care that he's an idiot, because he's their idiot and he'll do unthinkable, ungodly things to give power to them. Religious fundies will be teaming up with hicky racists and hardcore Republicans if he wins the nomination. That's an ominous voting bloc. He represents an extremist theocracy, like Islamic fundies in the middle east, and if he wins we'll have Islam and Christianity waving swords at each other again over nukes and trillion-dollar standing armies. The religious right must be stopped, they're awful throwbacks and warmongers and they can and will drag us all back into the middle ages with them if we don't take them seriously as threats to what could otherwise be a new Enlightenment.

On Valentine's Day... a sex-ed infographic!

2012-02-14T18:59:00.003-08:00

Well, that was over fast...

2012-02-03T10:06:00.000-08:00

So today, the Susan G. Komen foundation stepped down from their stance of defunding Planned Parenthood. This changes nothing. The event has shown me that they are not afraid to get political for the benefit of their board members, and that their originally stated reason for not supporting Planned Parenthood was complete crap. It has lead me to research their corrupt business practices. When you spend more money suing small charities for daring to use the phrase "for the cure" than you do on research, you have a problem. All Komen is saying is that they will not do the equivalent of calling the bank to make a "stop payment order" on this year's grant to Planned Parenthood. They make no promises for the future except that PP can "apply" for a grant. They've funded PP for over a decade. Now they just want to muffle the public outcry before their entire funding empire is taken down. The language is intentionally vague, and this is unlikely put to bed.

I would like to direct your attention to Founder Nancy Brinker's horrific display on MSNBC. It made me more disgusted and horrified about this whole matter. She is being deliberately misleading and avoiding the subject of several issues. One of the more horrible interviews I have ever seen. The people who left Komen are the ones who opposed the defunding; I want the ones who pushed the defunding to leave. They turned against the very women that volunteer and donate and raise money for them and then tried to backpeddle.

To ask the very women that they betrayed to pause and slow down and reflect is ridiculous - no one owes SGK a thing, especially not since they only react to the backlash they received once they exposed that they would deny a woman access to breast cancer screening at a facility that simply may happen to provide another women with access to a safe, legal abortion. I'm still refusing to support them. Planned Parenthood provides tangible services to women in need, Komen makes fistfuls of money by selling their brand. They shouldn't have picked that fight, because it laid bare the true purpose of "For the Cure".

Planned Parenthood

2012-02-02T13:49:00.000-08:00

That's it. The pink ladies of Susan G. Koman have finally gone too far. They have pulled funding for planned parenthood that went toward "170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals" for poor and un(der)-insured women. A huge part of what Planned Parenthood does is provide breast cancer screenings. Unfortunately, one of the higher-ups at Komen is extremely pro-life, and apparently is incapable of seeing any of the good Planned Parenthood does and only sees them as abortion providers. Hence, the foundation pulled its $680,000 grant. This means tons of women are in danger of not having access to life saving breast cancer screenings.

As many of you know, Planned Parenthood is an organization I support above many others. Why? It provides low cost, judgement free healthcare for men and women who absolutely need it. Here is a link to a tumblr full of stories from women who have been treated by Planned Parenthood. On the entire other hand, Susan G. Komen is a charity, but the Komen CEO salary in 2010 was $459,406 a year. They also like to go after small non-profits for trademark infringement for using the words "for the cure" using donor money. Komen does other things too though, like only give 17% of money raised to cancer research.

So where do we donate? The Breast Cancer Research Foundation is a good place, where more than 90 cents of every dollar donated to the Foundation goes to breast cancer research grants and awareness programs. And of course, donate here: www.plannedparenthood.org.

Fighting Back

2012-01-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

For an explanation of what SOPA really is, check out this link: http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/

I am proud to say that Google is against SOPA. If your hosting provider is not fighting SOPA, please consider switching to a hosting service that supports freedom.

Happy New Year!!!

2012-01-02T01:22:00.000-08:00

Entering into the second year of my blog. Hurray!! I hope everyone has a blessed and healthy new year!

The NDAA and what is to be done

2011-12-17T22:14:00.000-08:00

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemöller

"Terrorist" is the new "witch". The go-to accusation for the enemy of the powerful, someone whom you can jail on suspicion, and keep there indefinitely. The law is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The term "terrorism" shouldn't change that. Anyone accused of any illegal activity must receive a fair trial, and the purpose of that trial is to prove that the person is guilty. We are relying on the government to stay honest about who they term "terrorist". But the the DOD is calling legal protests "low-level terrorism". No mainstream media is covering this. Congress is passing band aide amendments to make it seem as though they are protecting the American people. Congress is using SOPA, which won't pass, to distract us from losing our basic rights in NDAA.

No government can survive when the people are against it. But the average American does not honestly care about anything in politics unless they are personally seeing the adverse effects in their own lives. As long as they only see it happening to somebody else, especially somebody who they don't perceive as being "like them," nothing will change and no significant amount of people will be angry. “It can’t happen to me.” More people are up in arms about SOPA than the NDAA. Why? All of us use the Internet daily, yet no one thinks they'll be considered a terrorist and hauled away. SOPA has the potential to personally affect far more people than NDAA ever will. It's easy to imagine SOPA causing giant websites to go black over the entire world, which could easily have consequences for nearly every Internet user in the world. On the other hand, while it's rational to be scared by the fact that the US can, without any given reason, keep you imprisoned indefinitely, it's not going to happen to me. By the time we are mad enough about anything it will be too late or illegal to do anything about it.

Simply shouting all over the Internet about the crimes of our government and how it must be stopped will not reach the average person. It will not make them care enough to do anything. What needs to be done is each of us talk to a friend, family member, co-worker, random person and make it personal and make them care. Until enough people care about the downward spiral of this country any movement is doomed to failure.

The Overpopulation Myth

2011-12-09T15:24:00.000-08:00

Whenever I hear people woefully mourn the coming apocalypse, a common thread is heard: There are too many of us. Overpopulation is the most recent pop science complaint and obvious go-to excuse for people who choose not to have kids. It would be logical, except for the unfortunate fact that current birthrates are at an all time low and dropping, and the current generation is biologically incapable of replacing itself.

Millions of people, more than ever in the generation reaching childbearing years, are never going to have any kids. The only reason the US population is growing faster than in any other industrial nation is the because of the high immigration levels. Other than that, we are under the replacement fertility rate, even with people like the Duggars and other Quiverfulls. Add in the fact that this upcoming generation is more male-dominated, making it near impossible for it to replace itself.

There is no exponential growth. In fact, population growth is slowing. For more than three decades now, the average number of babies being born to women in most of the world has been in decline. Globally, women today have half as many babies as their mothers did, mostly out of choice. They are doing it for their own good, the good of their families, and, if it helps the planet too, then so much the better.

Here are the numbers. Forty years ago, the average woman had between five and six kids. Now she has 2.6. In the United States, that number is 2.06. This is getting close to the replacement level, which, allowing for children who do not make it to adulthood is around 2.3. National averages are falling. Iranian women are having 1.88 babies instead of six. Indian women are having 2.62, China less than 1, and Bangladesh at three. That does not mean population growth has ceased. The world’s population is still rising by 70m a year. This is because there is a time lag: the huge numbers of young women born during the earlier baby boom may only have had two children each. That is still a lot of children. But within a generation, the world’s population will almost certainly be stable, and is very likely to be falling by mid-century.

The idea that growing human numbers will destroy the planet is Malthusian nonsense. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around 4 Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and, in the unlikely event that those ten children all live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or me. It is over-consumption, not over-population that matters.

The world's population is going to start to decline for so many reasons. There is no reason to wish death upon anyone. Just the basic structure of the upcoming generation dictates that it cannot even replace itself man for man, let alone increase exponentially.

The current generation of young adults is physically incapable of replacing itself. In China, there are 32.7 million more young men than women in the upcoming generation. In India, the under 20 population is 64% male. The over-7 population has 30 million more men than women. The societal implications mean that a significant percentage of the male population will not be able to marry or have children because of a scarcity of women. In China, 94% of unmarried people aged 28 to 49 are male. This generation is the largest, yes, but it is also biologically unable to replace itself.

The 2011 World Hunger Factsheet reads “The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.” We need better methods of transport, not fewer people.

Essentially, the statement that overpopulation will destroy the world has no place in any coherent debate. The true problems are overconsumption and poor distribution of resources.

Sources for Fertility Rates

How I Feel as a Jew Hearing Rick Perry

2011-12-08T16:54:00.001-08:00

The Strange World Rick Perry Seems to Live In

2011-12-07T18:55:00.000-08:00

Today, on the list of the top 10 things that greatly confuse and offend me, we have a new top contender. Rick Perry's new commercial. For those of you who haven't seen it, please watch:

If Perry himself were not in the video, I would be 100% positive this was a parody. But let's hold up. He may just be ignorant. After all, the concept of the Separation of Church and State is a relatively unknown concept . He might want to look into that, educate himself on how faith and government are no longer one entity, since, y'know, there are a lot of different faiths out there. Only 83% of America is even Christian. I happen to be part of that other 17% that Rick Perry obviously doesn't give two shits about. Another funny thing, by the way: students ARE allowed to pray in schools. Schools cannot mandate organized prayer, but they can't prohibit a student, or a group of students, from voluntarily praying. You'd think a governor would know that.

Those of you who read this blog reguarly know I am a strong proponant of the armed forced. And I I don't give two shits which team our soldiers bat for as long as they continue to protect our freedoms. There is no difference between an able bodied straight man serving and an able bodied gay man serving. Just like how we've allowed minorities and women to serve, it should be a no-brainer for gays to serve as well. Homosexuals have a highly noble tradition of serving stretching back to Alexander the Great himself. As far as I am concerned then are Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen. When a Marine sniper is providing overwatch for a dismounted patrol, no one cares what his religion, orientation, race, or favorite color is, it's how he shoots that matters to the man on point in that patrol.

Our Founding Fathers were Deists who knew church and state should be separated. There's something wrong in America where a openly bigoted, homophobic proponent of Christian theocracy has a chance at being president. Bigotry and ignorance have no place in governance. I'm sick of this whole "persecuted Christian" act. As a friend of a friend on my Facebook said: "Where are these kids struggling to openly celebrate Christmas? Nowhere. Where are these kids struggling to openly celebrate themselves? Everywhere."

I have one more question, this time adressed to the world at large: Is this real life? Because it sure as hell feels like a nightmare.

The "Nice Guy" Myth

2011-11-07T17:53:00.000-08:00

A prevailing theme on Reddit, and indeed on any message board where people can gather to complain about their days is the idea of the "friend zone". Now, if you have been on the internet long enough, you have probably encountered this idea in one of its many forms, but I will provide a quick overview for those of us who have been so lucky as to avoid this idiocy:

The friend zone is the idea that it is impossible to transition from good friend to partner. If you are good friends with a romantic interest for longer than a set period of time (I usually hear 2-3 weeks) you are stuck in their friend zone because their emotional response to you is as a good friend, not sexual, so they will have a harder time being attracted to you sexually. Once you are in that friend zone, there is no getting out, ever. The most important thing to remember with this definition is that it assumes that if you were not friends, you two could be an item. This leads into the "Nice Guy" stereotype that this post is named after. The stereotype is: this "friend zone" is accompanied by the girl always complaining to him about what a jerk her cheating boyfriend is and ask him for emotional support. He'll always comfort her, thinking his compassion will bring her to eventually see see that that he is right for her and boyfriend material, but she never does. Here is this issue with this. The Nice Guy is being nice simply to get into her pants. If he was not romantically interested in her, he wouldn't comfort her and help her out. "Nice Guys" feel entitled to a relationship with their female "friends". If they were not sexually or romantically attracted to those women, he would not be their friend.

(Note: I am giving the friendzoner the female pronouns from here on because most cases I find on the internet are of men complaining of women friendzoning them. It does exist in reverse and in homosexual couples but the majority of cases merit these pronouns and so I will continue with them. I am not grouping all guys into this group of "nice guys"- I am in a relationship with a wonderful man whom I love very much, and have numerous male friends. I am aware that men and women can be friends without any sexual tension and I cherish these relationships. I have been the "nice guy" in the past and followed these exact behavioral patterns. I am aware that it is not just a male problem and I do not intend to assign the stereotype to all men)

In case you haven't noticed, this post was prompted by something- this reddit comment thread. Very few things make me as ill as this "friend zone" mythology, the belief that a girl should want to date someone merely because he does nice things for her and has decent conversations with her. The subscribers to this mythology fail to understand that developing an emotional connection with a woman is not an automatic trade off for a sexual or romantic relationship. If that extra chemistry isn't there between the two people, then it just isn't there. To believe that the girl is required to be into the friendzoned guy "because he is nice to her" or for any other reason than that she is into him is not just incredibly immature, but also an entitlement mindset.

There's no such thing as a "friend zone" - any guy who claims to be in one isn't actually friends with the girl in question, because if he was her friend, he would care more about her happiness than getting some. However, the one being asked out is not entirely innocent in this case. Saying "I don't date friends" is gentler to someone's feelings than saying "I think you are ugly and smell funny". What these girls implicitly leave unsaid is that they didn't find him attractive; so he walks away with the impression that they do (or at least might) find him attractive, and that the problem is the fact that he became friends with them. Hence, the friend zone.

For a lot of people, both men and women, it is difficult to understand that just because this person clicks with someone intellectually and socially, and just because you are physically attracted to them, does not mean that someone feels the same. Communication is the key. People tend to think that somehow liking someone a lot will lead to reciprocation--telling a girl you're in love with her will make her like you back, too. But if you actually think about it it's obviously irrational. More often, liking someone too much will drive them away.

The friendzone mindset is similar to that of men who buy a woman's love through gifts and expensive dinners. If she really cares for you, she does not need to be bought. Your time, presence, and affection are what really matters. Similarly, the friendzoned male does not need to "buy" his romantic interest's affection through conversation and affection. Even when "friendzoned" feeling develop later in a friendship, the friendzone often happens just because he never works up the nerve to ask her out. Many of people seem to assume that if you're 'nice', dates will magically happen, where most of us treat people as friends who are acting like friends.

I think the "friend zone" is just something people tell themselves to make themselves feel better about being rejected. Yes, I have people that I am very good friends with, but I would never see them romantically or sexually. But they're not in a zone; there's not mental box they're placed in. I just don't find them attractive in that way. But it sucks for other people to think "shit, she just doesn't find me attractive". So they come up this "friend zone" concept that lets them place the blame for not being found attractive on some abstract concept, rather than just accepting the fact that they aren't attractive to someone. I see it as a cop-out many guys take when being rejected. Sure it "exists," just as men can friend-zone women. Many guys use the friend zone to sort of blame a women for not wanting to be in a sexual/romantic relationship with them. "She should want me, but she doesn't, so there is obviously something wrong with her...women are so illogical!" As if there is this moral obligation to reciprocate feelings. Many guys tend to think that its a phenomenon unique to women, as if men don't have standards as well.

Simply put, people try to find a logical explanation for things that don't have one, like why two people who get along really well might not be romantically compatible. This is because people assume that the only kind of intimacy that is possible is romantic/sexual intimacy.The only time the friend zone is an issue is when one person is romantically attracted to another and that romantic feeling is not returned. In that case, the romantic feelings are probably there from the start. So it's not a question of can you have a close friend it's that there is a difference in the levels of interest and attraction, and whether you are willing to become a friend to someone simply to get into a romantic relationship with them. The more and more prevailing usage of the term is part of the problem. People say "friend zoned" when what they mean is "she won't put out but hasn't told me to go fuck yourself". Anyone who would complain about being friend zoned is not actually a friend.

The term as originally used I can have somewhat more sympathy for. It can be frustrating to actually try to build a relationship, not put pressure on it, but definitely have sexual interest in a person, only to later find out they are completely not interested in you like that. Especially when it happens repeatedly. They genuinely want you to be their friend. It's an act of genuine courtesy to not try to force the issue, but the best way to avoid this is to be clear early that this is something you're interested in. So I guess the solution to the friendzone is that if you like someone: TELL THEM EXPLICITLY THAT YOU WANT TO DATE THEM and enough of the "Nice Guy" shit. That's just being irresponsible for your own well-being when you cry in a corner when she gets a boyfriend after all the dates and dinners.

What a short adventure in the world of debate taught me about the future of politics

2011-08-11T19:03:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to participate in a group of young Americans calling for responsibility in politics. I joined, at the urging of a friend who was also the founder of the group, mostly because I missed my own high school experience. I quickly became the only outspoken female contributor, and one of the more liberal members of the group (which should show you how far right this particular microcosm was skewed as I am more of a moderate than anything). The remainder of the group consisted of several young men, ranging in age from 16 to 25, all some degree of conservative. After a bit of time, I invited a close friend of mine to join and support me in several arguments, especially the ones involving homosexuality as he himself is gay. Then, what started off as a group created to discuss economic and social issues, with emphasis on the former, was quickly hijacked by a group of far-right Evangelical conservatives to advance a philosophical debate in support of their religious agenda. They refused to discuss practical solutions to real-world problems, instead preferring to wax philosophical citing their own Judeo-Christian upbringings.

A number of their arguments struck me as illogical, topic-dodging, and in many ways downright offensive. These included a discussion of why an adoptive family will never be the child’s “ideal” family (during a debate on gay marriage), decrying interracial dating and marriage, and supporting slut-shaming and rape apologies (during a discussion on comprehensive sex-education). When I attempted to point out the issues with their arguments, one cited a biblical verse about women remaining silent; another made it his mission to follow up to each of my comments with a sexual aside. The friend of mine in the group was targeted similarly, each of his comments being followed by a thinly veiled homophobic remark. Normally, this would not bother either of us, but it slowly became obvious that this was the belief of the majority of the group. It finally peaked when the main aggressor began to publically state that, firstly, he did not believe any of my credentials or abilities, nor did he believe in my enrollment at one of the most prestigious universities in the region. I could have ignored this. However this same group of aggressive, venomous conservatives continued to avoid the issues with strawman arguments and philosophical musings.

This group, as a microcosm, illustrates what's wrong with America. The only young people interested in politics choose to dream about bullshit rather than dealing with reality. They are more interested in attacking somebody for being a different race, being a woman, or being gay than taking their arguments on in a professional, civilized manner. They can spend days, weeks, years, or decades arguing about the definition of words while they cannot even balance a checkbook or survive in the real world. In an argument about minimum wage (oddly enough, they agree with Michelle Bachmann on the abolishment of a minimum wage, and when I cited my own inability to survive off of it as a college student, they argued it was perfectly sufficient for them as high school students living in their parents’ homes). Washington cannot get its affairs in order because we have people in Congress who should not be there because they never became grounded enough in the reality of life to understand how badly their lofty, ideological decisions affect people. They are these close-minded ignorant boys all grown up with titles and offices. I chose to leave the group, as well as my friend.

If our government is so polluted with religious theorists, cynics, economic morons and the like - is it any wonder that our nation's credit was downgraded? Is it any wonder that we're failing as a country?

Update

2011-07-29T22:18:00.000-07:00

Hey, all, I know I haven't posted in ages, and I'm horribly sorry about that. I've been dealing with a number of things with work, family, and my personal life. I just wanted to give an update on the conclusion to my medical scare earlier this month. I do have a serious intestinal difficulty, and the treatment will exclude me from military service. I have decided at the urging of friends and family who, unlike me, tend to put my health first, to pursue the treatment so I can hopefully live a life free of chronic pain. I am still accepting that the dream is gone, but I know I may be the better for it. One door closes, and another opens.

Guest Post- Gang Rape of Schoolgirl, and Arrests, Shake Texas Town (My question is, what's wrong with society?)

2011-07-12T20:45:00.000-07:00

Cat's Note: This is the first ever "guest post" to my blog, written by my good friend Emily. It does cover the topic of rape, and may need a trigger warning for some of you. Otherwise, please read, comment, and share; she's a fabulous writer, and I think this topic needs much more attention than it has gotten

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

If you're reading this, I feel like I should tell you that I appreciate that rape is a delicate subject, and I know that you and I probably don't talk about it on a regular basis. Nevertheless, I sincerely feel that this article - and probably countless other cases that are presented the same way - need to be talked about. Changes need to be made, and as people living together on this earth, it is our responsibility to raise awareness when it comes to unjust events like these. That's why I'm writing this. Stories like these need to be told.

Okay, so I get that this article is a bit outdated by today's standards of constant exposure to the media. What I don't get is the injustice of this situation. The gang rape, in itself, pisses me off. But what irritates me even more is the way it was dealt with.

Right off the bat, one of the first things this article is so keen to point out is that the men of Cleveland who were involved in this gang rape were "drawn in." Oh, come on! What kind of pathetic excuse is that? As if it was the girl's fault that she was raped? As if the men can't be blamed for such a crime? Morals and ethics and laws have just been completely thrown out the window. The key part of the word 'rape' is that it is non-consensual. This girl, who probably didn't even know what rape was before the crime was committed against her, did not "draw in" a man in order to be gang raped. What eleven-year-old girl's desire is to be gang raped? What kind of eleven-year-old girl can even wrap her mind around the concept of seducing a man in the first place?

The act of rape is a conscious choice on the behalf of the rapist. These criminals had the choice to remember the laws of modern society. They had the opportunity to listen to their conscience and remind themselves that rape - even when you don't consider the laws against it - is wrong on every moral scale. Even the age of the girl - the victim - says something about America's culture. What kind of world do we live in, where - it says in the article - eighteen men and teenage boys - are so attracted to an eleven-year-old girl, that they make the conscious choice to rape her? What does that say about the morals that our country values? More importantly, are there morals at all when it comes to such a thing? What does it say about America's culture, that we are finding little girls to be 'sexy' and constantly find ways to make them attractive sex objects? What does it say about America, that we accuse rape victims of "drawing in" rapists? I don't know about you, but every time I read that quote, I can't help but think that in a twisted way, we're essentially blaming the victim for the crime committed. What kind of twisted judicial system supports that notion? You tell me.

The next thing that caught my attention was this: a quote in the article from Sheila Harrison, a hospital worker living in the town where the crime was committed. She says, "These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives." Notice that her immediate concern was not for the girl that was raped, but the men who committed the crime. Well, I have something to say to Sheila Harrison: that girl is going to have to live with this trauma for the rest of her life, and in my opinion, she's the one we ought to be concerned about right here.

However, I would be willing to question the way that we, as Americans, are raising the next generation of children - if only because I find it horrifying that 18 men and teenage boys are ready and willing to rape a child. Doesn't this say something is wrong with the way right and wrong are defined nowadays?

The next irritating piece of this crime is that the gang rape itself occurred sometime around Thanksgiving, but it wasn't until December 9th that a search warrant was obtained for the building that the crime was committed in. Since then, the investigation commenced normally, I suppose - but this is what I wonder about: this article was dated as March 8th.

Now, I don't know the first thing about police investigation and the average time table that these kinds of things take place in, but what I do question is why it took three months to begin arresting the 18 rapists involved, especially if there really were video and photo proofs of the entire incident. The article even stated that the investigation wasn't complete yet, and that people were still being taken into custody.

According to this article, the people of Cleveland (where the crime was committed) have already done their worst to the victim. Is this what the modern criminal justice system has done to rape cases? The article raises the question: has it really all come down to whether or not she cusses on her facebook - if she even had one? That will be the way to prove that she was acting overtly sexual! Oh, surely that will be the way to prove that she was drawing in the men! We, the judge, jury, and the media, won't look at hard facts and evidence anymore, we'll just take a peek at her reputation..

Once again the media turns to the concept of the so-called 'purity myth': that all women are either virginal or sluts (pardon my language), and that there's no middle ground between. While at eleven, this girl probably shouldn't be delving into her sexuality yet, it's true that it seems as though the media are poking around and looking for reasons to give this girl a bad name; looking for reasons to make her sound like some cock tease (pardon my language) who's decided to cry rape. Doesn't that sound like the media is trying to make this the fault of the victim? Didn't I mention that somewhere earlier? In the second article provided, a word is ascribed to what the media is doing here. It's called 'rape culture.' It is inherently wrong for America to be so fascinated by and prejudiced against a woman who is all-too-obviously the victim of a horrible crime, just because she may have dressed in a style that upset someone. I hate to be the one to break this to whoever's been scrutinizing all these details of this poor girl's life, but really - nobody can please everybody.

Am I the only one who has seen this judgmental attitude in rape trials lately? To me, it looks like that if a girl is your average Caucasian woman, who toes the line and has probably sworn herself to abstinence and makes a show about her innocence being taken away, then it's almost guaranteed that the rapist will be convicted. However, as some advertisements say: here's the catch. If a rape victim is colored in any way, then the media will say that she was more at risk because of her ethnicity. If she lives in a low-income neighborhood, then her risk is higher because of her environment. And if she appears to be comfortable with her sexuality (oh, God forbid), or appears to be not one to practice abstinence, then both the media and the courts will comb through every inch of her private life just looking for dirt. In this specific case, the investigators didn't use past sexual exploits - the excuse was that she frequented the area where the crime took place, and therefore it was her own promiscuity that got her into trouble. But really, for lack of a better word, it's stupid, and it's just like saying that because I live in a house, a crime is more likely to happen on my family's property. Once again, it's like someone is looking for a reason to make the rape her fault. Now, if you don't want to believe that this prejudice exists, just comb through the latest trials. I am sincerely sorry that the stereotyping I've presented above is - in most cases - entirely true.

But if I were to compare these two stereotypical girls standing side-by-side, both their incomes and their vows would cease to matter, because no matter how you try to twist it, at the very core of the subject is this: both of these girls are women of equal standing with each other (no matter what statistics the media would have us believe), and both of these girls are the victims of a horrible crime. Why should one rapist be able to get away with what another would be convicted for as a result of the personality of the victim? As I said before, the act of rape is a conscious choice on the behalf of the rapist. Factors such as the color of a woman's skin, her system of faith, her neighborhood, her style of dress, and the details of her facebook account should not be deemed relevant enough in any court room to excuse a defendant's violent actions.

I'm aware that this is more than a little bit wordy. Despite that, I have a firm belief in every word I've written here. Feel free to pass it on, because this is the kind of thing that people need to talk about. This is the kind of prejudice that needs to be changed, and it can't wait any longer. Rape is wrong, and no characteristic of a woman's lifestyle can ever make it acceptable.

Thank you for your time and your thoughts,

Emily Thompson

Just writing to say...

2011-07-08T17:29:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a very short post, and I'm tired enough that I can't think of a witty title, but just wanted to say...

Thank you everyone who sent me their well wishes- I'm doing much much better now. It was a one-time thing, and it looks like I'm going to be able to pursue life as planned! Just have to take good care of myself to avoid another scare- one hospital stay is more than enough for me!

The Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-05T17:14:00.000-07:00

During my hospital stay, I have been lucky to have 24/7 access to a TV. As such, I have followed the Casey Anthony murder trial during its last few days. And, given time to think about it, the logical part of me is glad she was declared "not guilty". Before you all break out the torches and pitchforks, let me explain my reasoning.

Our justice system is based on a philosophy of "Innocent until proven guilty". You have to be guilty beyond the realms of a reasonable doubt. And you cannot say that about Ms. Anthony. Also, the burden of proof is on the state, not the defense. The prosecution has to prove that she is guilty. The defense does not have to prove her innocence. All they have to do is simply state that there is a possibility she could be. Especially in a case that could end in a death conviction, if there is any doubt, I would prefer they let her go free than kill an innocent woman. It pains me to say this, because I do think she had something to do with her daughter's death, but it is something that needs to be said. There's a good chance she'll get time served for the lesser charge of providing false information to law enforcement. From what I am aware of, she is going to be serving time because of her forged checks.

Without even a cause of death, it's hard to prove first degree murder. And all of the evidence given was circumstantial. I know that to many, circumstantial is equivalent with invalid, but many trials involving murder lack smoking gun forensic evidence, and in the past (and even today), people are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. In this case we have a suspect that has motive, access to the victim and then did everything in her power to divert attention, lie to the police and changed her story several times. In addition, there is pretty damnable circumstantial evidence in the case (the abandoned car with the body having been in the trunk, the diary talking about "the end justifies the means", the internet searches for chloroform, the nanny who had never met the family, etc.), but there was no way to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And without that, no moral jury could convict her, no matter what.

Speaking of a reasonable jury, I thank the sanity of the Founding Fathers in not allowing the jury access to the media. Because I truly believe that access to the news and talk shows helped them make this choice. The media has decided she was guilty. But there was no way to know what happened to that child, and there’s no direct evidence of to what actually happened to her. The media has been crucifying her since the story broke 2 years ago. No one seemed to care to wait for a trial before calling for the death penalty. And now that she has been acquitted, people are outraged. But I think I would rather have this guilty woman walk free than an innocent one be sent to Death Row.

Turning 18, My Hospital Stay, and Prayer

2011-07-02T03:02:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the night of my 18^th birthday, I am staring down the scariest thing I have ever imagined. I am sitting in the hospital, facing the idea that I may have a chronic medical condition preventing me from ever joining the military. I have wanted this for so long; imagining a life without it is mindboggling. I can handle pain. I have handled the pain of what I am going through for weeks before being pushed into going to the hospital by a close friend. I can handle most anything. But tomorrow, I do not even know if I can pursue my dearest dream. And that scares me more than anything I can imagine.

I do not know who I would be without the army in front of me. I have considered other careers, but this is what I have always come back to. And living without that before me would be my hell. It would be like being half of myself, like I lost the thing that keeps me hoping and dreaming. My friends keep telling me that it will all be okay, and it’s all part of God’s plan. And for the first time in a long time, tonight I prayed. I’m so scared, so honestly truly scared, that I cannot find anywhere else to turn. So, here I am, sitting in a hospital bed at 6am, with fluids running through my arm, praying and typing and crying and hoping that tomorrow morning, I will still have a dream.

Happy 18 to Me?

2011-07-01T00:19:00.000-07:00

2011-06-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Food Fight

2011-06-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

Amusing Ourselves To Death

2011-06-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

Weiner's Weiner, or how one man's lies brought Washington to a halt

2011-06-20T12:00:00.001-07:00

I am positive every one of my readers has heard of the so-called "Weinergate", so I am going to spare you the sordid details. It is too late at night for me to contemplate stomaching the details (and pictures) involved anyways. We all known the fall out from this debacle; a few days ago, Anthony Weiner resigned.

Now personally, I do not see his actions themselves as morally reprehensible. However, as an elected official you have to completely understand your responsibility to not do anything like this. Texting your picture to multiple women is highly inappropriate behavior for a public representative of the United States. Weiner knew this going in. But even after the fact, if he had simply said, "Yea, I did it. It was stupid. I regret my mistake, I'm sorry," and moved on, I would not have blamed him, nor would much of the media and the voters. Far better to drag something out into the open on your own than to have an enemy do it. Instead, Weiner flat out lied. And the media, being sensationalist, plastered the story across every so-called "news" show until Weiner had no choice but to resign. The progressives are losing a fantastic man for their cause with his resignation, and I truly feel for them. He was a rising liberal star. But stars fall, and Weiner fell far. Now, I don't think that lie was all so terrible, and I understand why he did it (ie, self-preservation), but it's still a blatant lie. Between the lies, and not to mention the pictures themselves, his public image was tarnished beyond repair.

Politicians all lie. Throughout my lifetimes, I have discovered this as a wide fact. Anthony Weiner's problem is that he got caught, and lied some more. But at the end of the day I have to wonder what will do more harm to America in the long run: posting pictures of your "wiener" on the internet, or promoting irresponsible public policies through blatant untruths?

Politicians should fall for giving in to harmful lobbies, as well as for giving into their darker vices.

The Bible and Marriage

2011-06-18T18:17:00.000-07:00

New York State Senator Roy McDonald as my new favorite Senator

2011-06-17T18:22:00.000-07:00

Today, this Republican senator from New York (whose name I had never heard before today, I must admit) officially earned my undying and eternal respect and admiration with the following quote on gay marriage:

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing [...] You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. [...] I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

Holy shit. First of all, the man get serious points for supporting gay marriage, a topic which tends to be a no-argument point among Republicans. Secondly, I want this quote framed and put in every office in Congress. Forever.

I have said many, many, many times before that the number one disease of our government is the current state of partisanship. As long as we subscribe to an ideology which places the beliefs of a nonphysical entity created by man above the judgement and morals of individual people, we cannot be stronger as a nation. This country is built upon the actions of individuals. Individuals are who make us great. And as we elect individuals to office, should we not trust their individual decision-making skills in relation to beliefs held as opposed to the beliefs and decisions of the political machine? I do not care where you stand in politics; liberal, conservative, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, etc. I care if you are able to look objectively at a topic, without allowing the party authority to breathe down the back of your neck, and know where you stand as an individual. We depend on our politicians to make choices that effect each and every one of us, so why do we endorse a system that disallows them to choose the very platforms on which they run, and upon which they ultimately vote?

The Ironies of Political Office

2011-06-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

Women in Combat

2011-06-09T17:30:00.000-07:00

In the past few months, there have been several major articles about women being allowed to serve in combat postions. As anyone who knows me will tell you, I am a strong advocate of women being allowed in combat. Worldwide, this has begun to become an acceptable transition. Australia has begun measures to allow women to participate in combat roles as of May. Israel has been allowing women in combat, allowing them to serve in equal roles, and actually conscripting women since 2000. The Washington Post released an editorial in May concerning myths about women in combat, written by a female marine. And CNN covered the Military Leadership Diversity Commission report on the very topic of transitioning women into combat roles. I'm linking to so many articles from major news organizations, by the way, because I know this is a hot topic, and I do not want to be accused of providing biased information on a topic that has effects on my own life.

Now, for my take: Women should be allowed in combat, as soon as we are required to pass the same PT test as the men we serve alongside. There is no room for political correctness in combat: while society might change, the physical abilities required to be an effective combatant haven't. Make gender an issue for a medical exemption, if you must. But if a woman is physically and psychologically capable of serving in combat, there is no reason why she should not. Women are already scientifically proven to be better than men at multi-tasking and have a higher pain tolerance. Propose a bill that equalizes standards for ALL who serve in combat roles, and I’ll be first to campaign for its adoption. After all, I've known women military and civilian who’d make better combat troops than many men who currently serving. They would have no problem passing the same tests as the men -and want the opportunity to do so. That's what Basic Training is for - to build up strength and endurance.

The fact is that many women do encounter combat with the type of warfare we are transitioning to in this day and age. The problem is that the military will not train them specifically for it, leading to more casualties, and a higher incidence of PTSD. Women also do not train specifically with the combat unit, which also aids the female fatality rate. So yes, women don't serve in the particular MOSs that are combat roles. However, the way that things work now, female mechanics, engineers, drivers, etc end up in combat zones and are fired on. Training women for combat is not only recognizing the myths that the author of the Washington Post article described, but also giving us the tools to survive in the modern war.

The "survival of society" argument is often put forth when confronting this issue. In WWI France lost nearly two generations of men. Yet due to no losses for women, it was able to field an army of 1M by the mid 1930’s. If they had suffered the loss of a generation of women, their society and culture would have had a tough time. This is a fact. However, we need to also confront the fact that we are no longer fielding massive armies of millions fighting battles in trenches. We are engaging in urban warfare, drone attacks, and other forms of modern warfare leading to much much lower casualty numbers. There will not be another large scale baby boom once we are done in Iraq and Afghanistan. The concentration of soldiers overseas is much much lower than in the eras of the world wars. This common argument is a nonissue.

Many will continue to make the same tired "Average Woman vs Average Man" argument. However, there is one thing that they ignore: You will never send Average Man into combat, nor will we ever depend on the reality of if Average Woman is skilled enough to pilot a plane safely. Average Person has never done anything in the world, ever. INDIVIDUALS do tasks. Individuals train themselves to rise above the rest. Individuals save lives, individuals shoot rifles, individuals storm hills, jump out of planes and face their fears as well as the enemy. If an individual is qualified, then an individual should be able to serve in whatever facility they can.

Things Done Better in Europe

2011-06-07T18:13:00.000-07:00

I know the title of this post may be shocking to some of you, as I am usually considered an avowed nationalist. However, during a conversation with a very dear friend of mine, I realized that there are quite a few things done more logically by our neighbors across the ocean. Therefore, I felt the irresistable need to make a list of them:

24-Hour Time: Commonly known to us in the good ol' US of A as military time, 24-hour time is infinitely more logical than 12-hour time. It is so much easier to tell what time of day it is when someone just gives you a number. And it's commonly used in Europe. Makes a ton more sense, honestly
The Metric System: Seriously. What is with our system of measurement? 12 inches to a foot? I don't know anyone with a foot that's a foot long. Well, maybe I do (tall people, I'm looking at you!) But putting everything on a base-10 system of measurement just makes more SENSE! I don't even know half of our system of measurement, to be utterly honest. Does our system of measurement even have a name? It's metric and.... American?
Celsius v. Fahrenheit. Our temperature scale also makes no sense. 32 degrees is a totally random number. Zero, however, even SOUNDS cold.
Tea Time: How in the world could you protest having tea, crumpets, and some deliciously adorable little cakes every day around 1600 (4:00pm)??
The drinking age. I've written entire posts on this. C'mon people.... seriously? Bring people up around alcohol, and they'll learn to treat it respectfully.
Football, Not Soccer: You play it with your feet. Subject closed.

But we're still better at everything else. Like making cars that human beings can actually fit in. And war.

Wait... What?!

2011-05-30T19:14:00.001-07:00

Women in Combat

2011-05-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

First of all: Holy shit, guys. I had over 1500 hits to my post about me and the draft office last week. Never even thought I could get that many hits to anything I wrote. Glad to see I ignited some discussion too. It's something that needs to be looked at, even if the draft being reinstated is highly unlikely.

Secondly: A lot of the discussion I saw ignited was about women in combat. Yesterday, the Washington Post published this editorial by a former marine about the myths concerning women in combat. Honestly, I think the author makes some brilliant points. If I were you, especially if you are opposed to women in combat, I'd check it out. I don't really have much more commentary than that, although I'll try to write another post within the week. Things are getting a bit hectic with then end of the year.

Me and the Draft

2011-05-25T10:44:00.000-07:00

Apology to my dear friend Max: The title should be "The Draft and I". However, for reasons of keeping the url active, I will leave it the way it is. Sorry, grammar nazis.

Today, I, as a nearly 18 year old American citizen, tried to sign up for the selective services. Logically, I'm a prime candidate. I can pump out 60 push ups in 2 minutes. I run a 7 minute mile, and two in a little over 15 minutes. I can do 4 sets of 5 pull ups. I can carry my own body weight over a long distance. There is one reason, and one reason only that I was not granted the ability to be called up in defence of my country- I am female.

In today's technologically advanced military, there is very little chance that the draft will ever be called up again. However, this is no reason for nearly half of our population to be excluded from the draft. The arguments against allowing women to sign up for the draft are the same as disallowing homosexuals to serve, or African Americans. I have said many times in this blog that I am an egalitarian. In times past, I would have perhaps called myself a feminist. Like many words, however, this term has been corrupted and is now seen to mean advancing the female gender at the exclusion of the male. In this case, however, I simply am asking to be given the same privilege as my male peers, and therefore will continue to label myself an egalitarian.

I have lived in the USA for almost 18 years. I have been granted the same rights and privileges as my male age peers. And yet, in a time of crisis, I cannot be called up to serve my country. Yes, I am planning to serve anyways. But this is not the point. So many changes could be made to suit both sides. Women can be called up to serve in non-combat positions. . Not all individuals drafted need be placed in direct combat roles. If every 18-year old were drafted, some men and women would be better suited for an active combat role. Others would be better suited to operate as medics or behind a desk. While such a draft program would not place every drafted soldier in the front lines, it could enable the less physically fit individuals to take over positions previously occupied by more combat-appropriate drafted soldiers. We could even phase the draft for women in, by making it voluntary at first.

The military is clearly not up for equality, in case you missed how much many soldiers and officers defend DADT. Lots of 'traditionalists' are still in charge, who still think women can't perform, or argue that male soldiers can't stand seeing female soldiers dead bodies, and so many other shitty stereotypes. My personal belief is that with rights and with privileges such as voting comes the right and the privilege to defend your country should, FSM forbid, such a situation arises as requires the bureaucracy to reinstate it. Excluding women from being required to sign up for the selective service based on the notion that they are physically weaker than men (or for any reason, really) is extremely sexist in my point of view. Just the same, only forcing men to sign up for selective service based on the notion that they are physically stronger (again, or for any reason) is also extremely sexist. In my eyes, it should be all or nothing, so to speak. All people are required to sign up or no one does. If we assemble a fighting force consisting of the best men and women, we will have a more capable force than if we subscribed to the single gender mentality.

Where Do You Fit? Political Orientation Quiz

2011-05-22T21:27:00.000-07:00

Here's a super awesome political orientation quiz a friend sent me. Not surprisingly, I got Libertarian. It's actually a pretty interesting quiz, in my opinion, though I'd appreciate more questions.

Sound Familiar? Part 2

2011-05-22T17:42:00.000-07:00

And, post-"rapture", the reports are coming in of exactly what I saw coming:

Cops: Woman Tries to Kill Children, Self to Avoid 'the Tribulation'

But it's not all doom and gloom. In fact, I found one big laugh on the internet from this whole ordeal:

So, with that, I close my apocalypse series until October 21st- the day we're all supposed to die. After that, we won't discuss the end until December of 2012. And then? Well, we'll see...

Gender, Childrearing, and Egalitarianism

2011-05-21T12:06:00.000-07:00

A lot of thought has gone into this post, and many of my ideas are still only partially formed at the time of writing. I consider myself an egalitarian, not a feminist. In fact, many of the tenants of feminism and their social results have implications I consider morally reprehensible. On that train of thought, being a (mostly) responsible 17-year-old, I also do not have any children, nor any experience with childrearing. However, I do consider myself able to see gross idiocy in people's choices when raising their children, and will be using that moral compass, as opposed to personal experience, in my evaluation of people's choices in their childrearing..

Here is the article that prompted this post. In short, it is about two parents who are attempting to raise their third child as "genderless" and are not informing anyone whether (s)he is a boy or a girl. They have two older sons, both of whom are also being raised free of gender constructs- the five-year-old, named Jazz , keeps his hair long and braided and wears dresses, and is usually mistaken for a little girl. The three-year-old, named Kio, loves purple (I'm not even going to comment on the naming choices of their children- the youngest is named Storm, by the way). If I had to take bets on it, I would guess that it is a boy; statistically, if your first two children are boys, there is an 80% chance that the third will be as well.

Now, as someone who was a bit of a tomboy as a little girl, I am not going to argue with their intentions. However, I think these parents have gone a bit too far with imposing their ideology on their children. Children should be taught that they are a specific sex, you are female or you are male. But that does not define who you are. If you want to be feminine or masculine that is okay. I mean, this child has something between their legs. Children aren't born with the ability to make choices about anything; that's the job of the parents. I'm all for letting kids discover themselves and their world, but parents are there to help them, which means a certain amount of guidance and control, especially at such a young age. Plus, they are also using their child to make a political statement without his/her consent. I am 100% supportive of not choosing for a child how to express their gender (clothing, behavior, colors, toys, etc.), but being honest about what biological sex the child is is not "making a choice" for the child. It's acknowledging a fact of nature. If the child chooses something different for him/herself in the future, that is their choice. In my opinion, right now, they're making this kid's entire life about not having a gender, instead of making it about his or her personality and interests.

The problem is not that we "tell" children what their sex is, it's that we scorn people who do not act within the defined roles we have created for each sex. That is a problem, and one that causes a lot of pain, but it's an adult problem that I believe should be solved in the adult world, and not inflicted on an infant. I'd prefer if a girl isn't taught the whole 'your sum total is your attributes' thing and a boy isn't taught the whole 'your sum total is your actions' thing. But those don't stem directly from telling the child their physical gender. I'm female, yes, but I was raised with "Your value stems not from who you are, but from what you do with it." I was raised pretty gender-neutral, partially because my father, who took care of me for my first four years of life, didn't know how to "raise a little girl". I grew up camping, shooting, climbing trees, falling in mud and in general being who and what I wanted to be. I loved my Barbies, yes, but they went on adventures in the backyard along with G.I. Joe. I knew I was a little girl, yes, but at that age I was taught that that didn't matter- I was who my actions dictated, not my gender.

By keeping the gender a secret, the parents are missing the point. You should be teaching your kids to do whatever makes them happy (within means) regardless of what people think of them, not to internalize outside point of views and work to circumvent them. That is, they are teaching their children to 'buck the system' for it's own sake, not because it reaches an end. They are actively looking for comments so they can shoot them down. When you are that young, gender truly doesn't matter. In all honesty, it should never matter to the point that it does in our society.

As I mentioned before, I was raised with a "You are who your actions dictate, not who society dictates" point of view. To me, that should hold true throughout society. Yes, men and women have different physical abilities (popping smaller people out comes to mind). Yes, men and women have different genitalia and body types, and chemicals, and a lot of other things. But if we have these differences, we should still be held to the same standards. Just because I'm a teenaged girl doesn't mean that I want to go shoe shopping and watch chick flicks. If you do, I have no beef with you; it's just not my thing. And that's because of personality, not gender. Likewise, I can generally do a lot more pushups than most guys I know. That's because of personal effort, not gender.

As this is getting rather long, and there's an excellent hockey game on currently, I think I will challenge feminism directly another day. Unless, you know, tonight really is the end of the world.

Sound Familiar?

2011-05-20T16:54:00.000-07:00

So, who remembers my post from yesterday? Anyone? Anyone? And look what showed up today. Just lovely. Anyone want to take bets on how many more reports of this shit will be rolling in in the next few days?

If the world ends tomorrow, what about the families?

2011-05-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Note: I'm going to be quoting from this NPR article quite a lot. So read it, if you are interested.

I am going to say, very honestly, this May 21st, 2011, at 9:27 pm, I am 100% sure that I will still be here, along with all of my "good" friends, tomorrow morning. But this story raises an important point. I'm worried about some of these overly-religious, superstitious, gullible people doing something drastic with regard to their families when they wake up the 21st and are still here.

:"As May 21 nears, Brown says he feels as if he's on a "roller coaster." What if he is raptured but his family is left behind?"

The article talked about some of the families disbelieving the May 21st rapture. I'm guessing that therefore, the disbelieving family members therefore would not be raptured.

"If I'm here on May 22, and I wake up, I'm going to be in hell," says Brown. "And that's where I don't want to be. So there is going to be a May 22, and we don't want to be here."

If someone is crazy enough to believe the world is ending in so many days, and is scared shitless of what happens afterwards, they're likely to lose it. As someone raised in a Christian household, hell is the scariest thing in the world to these people. So if this man, already a bit unhinged in my opinion, wakes up and believes himself to be in hell along with his wife and children whom I'm assuming he loves very much, he is likely to try to "save them" from the approaching horrors of the next 153 days, by shooting them or smothering them or any other method of killing them. If you base so much of yourself off of a belief like this, you're likely to snap when it is proven false, and continue to believe in it and react accordingly.

Right now, they are anticipating the rapture, and all the glories that will come with it. However, once the time comes and goes, then they are, in their minds, proven to be unworthy in the eyes of the lord. They didn't pray hard enough, or something along those lines. Logically, then, they should now be bracing for the horror they were hoping to escape. We would hope that they don't try to spare their children this horror. Even though we all know that the Bible forbids killing, it can actually be seen an incredibly selfless act, from that warped view. They're damning themselves to save others. The only problem with that is that there is no rapture coming. So, prepare yourselves for an influx of murder-suicides.

I read somewhere that Camping is apparently already planning to explain the non-Rapture as God being impressed by so many prayers that he will decide to delay The Rapture. This theory portrays God as being so capricious, weak-willed and non-omnipotent as to change his mind over such a major event; sort of the Old Testament God of the Book of Job. But the sect who believe in this nonsense will suck this right up as further "proof" of the power of prayer. And so it goes.

UPDATE #1

Left v. Right- Infographic

2011-05-15T16:05:00.001-07:00

Another Type of Terrorism

2011-05-13T15:22:00.000-07:00

When the phrase "terrorism" is brought up, the image of 9/11 invariably flashes into our minds. But terrorism can consist of much smaller, more personally damaging acts. Acid burning of women, something that occurs painfully often even in these modern times is such an example of personal terrorism. The reason behind these attacks are such as a woman turning down a certain man's advances, so he disfigures her as a way to prevent future marriage to another man. 200 accounts were recorded in Bangladesh in 2008. Since 1994, a Pakistan-based organization has recorded 7,800 reported incidents. Of those reported in Pakistan, only 2% of the cases ended in a conviction. These attacks are most common in Cambodia, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other nearby countries. As these countries are very poor, little, if any, treatment is available to these horribly scarred women. It is reported that Bangladesh has only five burn centers and the vast majority of burned women couldn't afford treatments anyway. 80% of victims of these acid attacks are female and almost 70% are under 18 years of age.

These attacks are not meant to kill. Rather, they shame the victim, destroy her physical beauty as well as cause severe psychological damage, remove any chance she has at advancement in her society, and she will then become dependent on her relatives, her face stricken with a constant reminder of the "wrong" she has committed in rejecting this man. In many discussions, it is the woman's appearance that people appear to be fixated on. Not the pain of their disfigurement, not their inequality in their society, but that they are now sadly ugly. However, it would be disingenuous not to comment on the shocking physical appearance conveyed by the pictures of the survivors of these attacks, as their faces are the great conveyers of their pain to the world.

These women are well aware of the ramifications of the crimes perpetrated on them; the physical scarring can lead to feelings of shame and embarrassment, resulting in the survivor living a life in hiding due to fear of prejudice and stigma from their peers and the community. Many survivors continue to have vivid memories of the incident which cause great levels of distress, especially when they know their attackers are free to attack again- PTSD which is sadly expectable in cases such as these.

Women can be targeted for many things. Schoolgirls are targeted in Afghanistan. According to National Geographic, in India, acid attacks can be used to enforce the caste system. In Bangladesh, it is mostly vengeful husbands, over anything from a late dinner to a divorce. In South Asia as a whole, it can be vengeance for a refused marriage proposal, or a too-small dowry. In Cambodia, it was reported that these attacks were mostly carried out by wives against their husbands' mistresses. According to a Rand Corporation commentary, hundreds of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been blinded or maimed "when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed".

There is legislation on the board for attacks such as these, but it is seldom enforced. In fact, the only occation in which I can find it being enforced was, ironically, Iran in 2008, where a man had acid dropped in his eyes for burning his sleeping wife. In 2002, Bangladesh introduced the death penalty for throwing acid and laws strictly controlling the sales of acids, but it is not well-enforced. Acid attacks are at an all time high in Pakistan and increasing every year. The Pakistani attacks usually reported are typically the work of husbands against their wives who have "dishonored them". In India, the number of acid attacks have been rising.

How lucky we are to witness this far away from the realities of this happening to us. It is mindboggling that such cruelty still occurs in this day and age. No matter what country, or what culture, cruelty is still cruelty, and terrorism is still terrorism, whether it occurs on national television or in a village halfway across the world.

More info can be found in this article. Warning: This article contains graphic images of the damage done by such attacks. Possibly NSFL

Tango Down

2011-05-01T21:40:00.000-07:00

I begin this entry on May 1st, 2011. By the time I finish, midnight will have passed, and it will be the 2nd.

When I was 8 years old, the world came crashing down around me. I discovered that war was not just for history books, and that America could be hurt. When I was 8 years old, I watched the live footage of the World Trade Center attacks. When I was 8 years old, in third grade, just a child, I watched 2,996 people die in flames. And I was 8 years old the day I first heard the name Usama Bin Laden, spoken in hushed whispers by a boy in the back of the bus attempting to explain the horrific events we had witnessed that day.

Now, I am 17. Older, wiser, and more world-weary. And finally, as has needed to come to past some almost ten years, he is dead. But it's not all roses and smiles. We have his body, but retaliation is coming. There is going to be a power vacuum, and this is going to cause a huge shitstorm within their ranks. This is going to be a bloody few months, and either they'll all kill each other, or they'll emerge more powerful and radical than ever. There's going to be blood for our troops too- vengeance is an amazing driving force. It isn't over yet.

Celebrate now, sleep well tonight, because tomorrow, it begins anew. This is a game changer, but the way the game will change is unknown. It is a great day for America, a great day to be an American, but the fight isn't won yet. In fact, it is far from over. So let us praise our country, who got us to this point, and let us praise our troops who made it happen. History has indeed been made today, and there is great cause for rejoicing. The #1 threat to America is gone. All that is left to say is: Ladies and Gentlemen, we have him, and we have him dead. God Bless America- HOOAH

The Problem With the Drinking Age

2011-04-24T09:26:00.000-07:00

In 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed. This instructed states to prohibit all purchase of alcohol by people under the age of 21, effectively creating a subordinate and inferior class of individuals between the ages of 18 and 20. If the states did not pass appropriate legislation, the federal government would withdraw funding guaranteed under the National Highway Act. These laws deny those in this quasi-class the same protections and privileges of the law guaranteed to all other adult citizens. This act is completely irrational and ineffective, and in many places contradicts itself.

There are many ways in which the National Minimum Drinking Age Act completely defies logic. For example, 14 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 19 states do not specifically ban underage consumption, and an additional 27 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their laws. So, let’s say I was in South Carolina. My 22 year old friend could go buy a beer, and then I could drink it, as long as I was not in a club or bar. In California, I could go into a bar with my parents, and as long as they said it was ok, I could drink myself silly.

Those of us who listen in history may know of the era of Prohibition. This was the time, from 1919 to 1933, when alcohol was entirely prohibited in the United States. This was a complete failure, and many deaths from poorly made “moonshine” (distilled alcohol) resulted. From the end of Prohibition until 1984 drinking ages were determined by the states, many of which had the age at 21 while several lowered the age to 18 for the purchase of beer. This changed with the Vietnam War. From 1970 through 1975 nearly all states lowered their legal ages of adulthood, including their legal drinking ages, from 21 to 18. It was argued that if people were required to fight and die in a foreign war then they should be allowed the privileged of drinking alcohol. And that argument stands today. Our men and women are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t care if you agree with the war or not. I don’t care if you think Bush is a genius or a total moron. I’m not bringing that argument into this. The fact is, there is a war going on. And if someone is old enough to die for our freedom, they should be granted all of their freedoms, including that of drinking alcohol.

And, let’s face it. Is this law effective? No. All of us know or knew someone who drinks and is underage. Here are just a few statistics. -More than 40% of teens who admitted drinking said they drink when they are upset; 31% said they drink alone; 25% said they drink when they are bored; and 25% said they drink to "get high." (U.S. Surgeon General, 1991). Each year, students spend $5.5 billion on alcohol, more than they spend on soft drinks, tea, milk, juice, coffee or books combined. On a typical campus, per capita students spending for alcohol--$446 per student--far exceeds the per capita budget of the college library. (Eigen, 1991 in the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). Approximately 240,000 to 360,000 of the nation's 12 million current undergraduates will ultimately die from alcohol-related causes--more than the number that will get MAs and PhDs combined. (Eigen, 1991 in the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) Eight young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996) (Mothers Against Drunk Driving website). So, this law, this law that limits the rights of legal adults, is not even effective. Even those most fervently for the upholding of it must take pause at this simple fact.

Alcohol statistics in Europe say that teens coming from homes that had no alcohol and were not taught how to drink responsibly had more issues with alcohol. Also, 33% of the teens who said that they bought their own alcohol, were six times more likely to drink in a public space, 3 times more likely to drink frequently and twice as likely to overindulge on alcohol. The behavior in these teens was less risky if parents allowed them to drink in the home. The Europeans have a lower drinking age than we do. In Europe, the average minimum drinking age is 18, although some countries have drinking ages of sixteen or seventeen. And they have LESS of a drinking problem. It comes down to this- as teens, we like to rebel. It’s part of being a teen. And if your parents tell you you can’t have something, are you going to want it more or less? And you are far more likely to abuse something when no one knows about it.

At 18, you can buy a home, purchase lottery tickets, hold a full-time job, vote, get married, but you cannot have a glass of wine. You can help decide the future of America with your vote, but you cannot buy a drink. You can hold a full-time job- but not go to a company cocktail party. A man can get married at 18, but cannot lawfully have a glass of champagne at his own wedding. Is this logical? No. All other rights are guaranteed to you at the age of 18. It is therefore logical to establish the age for the legal consumption and purchase of alcohol at the same age where far more important rights are granted. If someone is old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to have a beer.

I’m sure that the states would repeal the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, but if they do, their federal funding would be cut. In my book, that’s blackmail. Do we really want this Prohibition hangover to hang over us for the rest of our lives? Then it is time to realize those of the age of 18 as true, legal adults with all the rights thereof, and not as the partial citizens they are now.

Never Again

2011-04-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

I am a student of war. This has never been an intentional choice; I am simply drawn to those things that characterize such a person. From an early age, I have loved history, but not the history of peace. Paintings and religion have never amused me; rather, I have loved the tales of battles won and lost; of heroes and anti-heroes and the men who died under them. As a child, I would sit at my grandfather's feet and listen to his stories of his time as an American soldier in Germany in the years after the Second World War. Years later, little has changed. I can shoot better than most boys my age; I know how to wield a saber. I can describe ancient battles from memory, and my bookshelf is populated with the greatest men and women I could find to look up to. From Napoleon to Patton, Lee to Themistocles, Alexander to MacArthur, Maurice of Nassau to Nzinga of Ndongo and so many more. Histories, biographies. And the artifacts- the Russian uniform pieces from before the Soviet era. The Soviet medallions, the Greek coins. The Prussian boots and the SS hat. All living in the hodgepodge of history that has become my life.

I am a student of war. But through what I have learned, I have also learned one fundamental truth. War is a terrible thing. And, in the eternal words of Robert E. Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it". Some of the greatest deeds in history have been done in battle, or because of it. But also some of the worst and the cruelest. So I know I am not the first, and I pray I will not be the last, but I would simply like to say: Never again should atrocities be committed. No more holocausts; no more atom bombs. No more LeMay, Ghengis, nor Attila. Not Nanking, Armenia, nor Al Zarqawi. No more Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Tojo nor Mao. Atrocities, genocides, and massacres should never be permitted, no matter from whom they come.

I am a student of war, and have in my studies learnt that there is such a thing as a just war. Sometimes, war is needed. It is a last resort to solve a problem, but can be, in the worst of situations, a viable solution. But if my 17 years on this planet have taught me anything, and I hope dearly that they have, it is that atrocities in war are not an essential part of war. War is cruel, but actions such as the ones I have referenced are inexcusable.

I am a student of war who is willing to use her knowledge to fight one if the need arises, and who would do so to the last breath in her body. But I am also a student of war who hopes dearly that she will never have to.

True Patriotism

2011-04-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

Last night, at approx. 2300 EST on April 8, 2011, President Obama announced to the world that the United States’ government would not shut down and that Congress, after days of bickering, had passed one of the largest budget cuts in history. Finally. The world breathed a sigh of relief. But throughout this entire ordeal, I noticed a trend throughout the interwebs that was, at the least, worrying:

All over Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter and other sites I frequent more or less constantly were copy-paste posts full of statements of patriotism and lofty phrases in application thereof. And now it is time for one thing to be made clear- Patriotism, true patriotism is not determined by how many waving American flags you can rotate on your desktop background, nor how many you can fit in your yard. True patriotism is not determined by how many “Support Our Troops” pages you can join on Facebook, nor by how many times you can wave the Constitution in someone’s face while yelling at the top of your lungs about its application to something you are only judging based on your own personal moral compass, and not the document you are shoving under the nose of your “debate” opponent- “debate” in quotes simply because shouting about a document you have never read is not in any sane universe a debate.

At least in my world, Patriotism, like integrity, is doing the right thing when no one’s watching simply because it is the right thing. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” It is not enough to join various Facebook groups simply to impress your JSA friends, or that politically aware cutie who sits behind you in Biology. You need to know what you believe, and have the wisdom to listen to others who disagree and truly see where they come from. You need to be aware of what your associates are saying, and decide for yourself where you stand. You need to act on your own volition, not based on what someone else says on the radio, in an editorial, or on a TV talk show. You are the only one who can decide what you believe, and you need to base that on openness and awareness of what is going on in the world. You need to listen to all sides, understand where they come from, and alter or uphold your beliefs based upon your new knowledge.

Love America for its virtues, because it is truly the greatest place in the world, and work towards making it even greater. America is great because of its people constantly working to improve not only their country, but themselves. Patriotism is defined as the love of one’s country. But to love something, you cannot sit back in your lawn chair with your beer belly, chugging Bud Light while bellowing at the football game playing on your flat screen you bought on your already over drawn credit cards. You have to work for it, to improve not only it but yourself. You have to protect it, defend it with your words, your work, and if need be, your very life.

True patriotism is an ideal, and like most ideals it is almost impossible to come by. But one of the greatest things about this greatest country of ours so- dare I say it?- great is our constant longing to strive for the ideal, for that perfection. No man or woman in this country has not strived to make themselves into their ideal, whether their ideal is thinner, or stronger, or smarter, or whatever they want. Here, we teach to strive for excellence, for perfection, even when they know that perfection is unattainable. America will never be perfect, but we are, have been, and will be great. Yes, there are terrible things in our past. But there are terrible things in every man, woman, child, and country’s pasts. True patriotism is all of these things, and more. But it is not, and never will be, simply something you can copy and paste a status about just to feel good about yourself and look good for your friends.

The Wisdom Teeth Story

2011-02-23T20:03:00.000-08:00

First of all, sorry for not making a new post for the last few months... been busy and all that crap. In the process, though, I got my wisdom teeth out, which will today lead to one of the most hilarious stories I have to tell (though at the time, it was utterly terrifying)

So I get to the office at 0730 with my dad to get all four teeth out. They numb my arm, give me laughing gas, and stick the needle in my arm. I float off to happy drug-land. Few hours pass, in which all four wisdom teeth are taken out, and my jaw is broken in several places in order to achieve this. I open my eyes and THERE IS A WORM IN MY MOUTH! So, like any sane individual upon discovering a rather large worm in his or her mouth, I freak out, and started to say something about it to my father, who I know is standing next to me. I turn my head, and there is George Patton. I'm freaking out, and if I had had total motor control I would've been thrashing. He rolls his eyes and walks out, so I turn my head the other way, and started to try to tell the penguin standing next to me that there was a worm in my mouth. She shushed me, and told me it was my tongue. Now I was having none of that bullshit, because I can feel my tongue. I know what that's like. They put a goddamn worm in my mouth. So I start to panic. She assures me that it isn't a worm. So I take the next logical step. They didn't put a goddamn worm in my mouth. It's a SNAKE. And who knows, it may crawl down and bite my insides, right? My panic intensifies. The penguin next to me tries to calm me down through sweet talk, including asking me what I want to be when I grow up. My garbled answer is "I wanna be a penguin like Napoleon!". Still not quite sure where that came from. But through about a half hour of sweet talking, they finally convince me that yes, it is a friendly worm, and the nice general is going to take me home now, okay? So the penguin waves goodbye, and Patton puts me in the car and we drive home.... The effects lasted for 5-6 more hours. My chatlogs from that time are VERRRY interesting.

Why I Idolize George S. Patton

2010-09-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

When I grow up..... these words are echoed throughout elementary school classrooms daily. But what about in this high schooler's mind? Because when I grow up, I want to be just like George S. Patton. Let me explain why a 17-year-old girl would ever want to be like a grizzled, profane general: First of all, he is, in my mind, one of the greatest men America ever produced. He practically won WWII for us, helped develop the Tank Corps, and when he dared to speak his mind about the Soviet menace, the President politely asked him to step down. (Anyone reminded of what happened to Stanley McChrystal earlier this year?) But it's for more reasons than that that I see him as a true idol and inspiration.

I have severe dyslexic dysgraphia. It's a learning disability which seriously impedes my ability to write and spell, not to mention my fine motor skills. My handwriting is far worse that that of my much-younger brother, not to mention that of my classmates. No matter how many lines I write, my spelling has never improved. I have been know, on occasion, to spell a word several different ways in the same paper. There is no medication for this. I don't want special consideration- I want to be held to the same standard as my peers, because I hold myself to a higher one. So yes, writing will cause me pain. I deal. Pain makes me stronger, and hard work is the primary ingredient of success. Patton was severely dyslexic- so much so, that he didn't learn to read until he was 11. Back then, people didn't even know what it was. It was assumed he was just stupid. That couldn't be further from the case, of course. It haunted him throughout his life, but one thing he said in a letter to his nephew makes me smile, and gives me hope, because he could see the humor in even this:

“Any idiot can spell a word the same way time after time. But it calls for imagination and is much more distinguished to be able to spell it several different ways as I do.”

I wish I had his way with words. I wish I had the guts that he had. I admire his brilliance, his ferocity, but also his more artistic moments. Yes, he was a fantastic general. But he was also a fantastic poet. He was a brilliant swordsman, but also a scholar. I believe, therefore, that the greatest lesson anyone can learn from General George Smith Patton III is not just how to overcome obstacles. It's to be yourself and, more so, to believe in yourself. Then, and only then can you achieve great things.

Self-Esteem

2010-09-27T17:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, the hardest thing to admit to yourself is the thought that you are worth something. But it’s also the most important thing. It took me twelve years to get to the point where I realized my own self-worth. All of my school life, I’ve heard the words people use for me behind my back. “Freak” “Stupid” “Slut” “Ugly” “Weird”. Now, I’m the first to admit that I’m different from most other people, but I like my differences; they’re what make me me. But the words used behind my back as well as to my face made it so that there was a time in my life where words like “friendly” “pretty” “smart” and “fun” could never, ever apply to me- at least, that was the way I saw it.

But last year through the strangest of circumstances, I discovered how much I was worth to myself. It took, ironically enough, the cruelest, most insensitive comment ever made to or about me. It is something I still cannot repeat, partially due to the content, and partially due to the fact that this person does not know that I heard what was said, and I do not wish them to. The words themselves do not matter. What does matter, however, was the fact that dealing with the shock of what was said took me literally months. Finally, one day, reflecting on the fact of how long it took to absorb it, a thought popped into my head. Why was I trying to absorb what was said? I should let it pass me by. If I’m absorbing it, I’m holding onto the awful things that were said about me. And once I realized I shouldn’t hold onto it, I realized I shouldn’t even care. What someone thinks about me means nothing. I am my own person, and if I take other people’s opinions of me to as truth, I’m never going to be happy. There’s always someone out there who’s going to say ugly things. What matters is knowing that you are worth only as much as you believe you are. The young man who made that comment about me may never know how much what he said changed me. And honestly, the amount of pain he caused me last year makes me not wish to communicate with him again. The words that were spoken cut deeply enough to make me look inside of myself and realize I was thinking of myself all wrong. Other people only see what’s on the outside, and make judgments accordingly. But you see who and what you really are, and so your own judgment is the most valuable. Only what you think of yourself matters. Everyone else’s opinions are just extras.

What I am saying may even sound a bit cliché to you. But it’s true. You cannot be successful until you believe in yourself. Everyone is worth something, and what other people say, either to your face or behind your back, can never change that. One you know you are worth something, you realize who you really are. And that person is worth more than all the judgments in the world.

Relgion, Tolerence, and Why I Care

2010-09-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

The Taliban, Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and the other extremest organizations are evil. I will never contradict a single person on that fact. I lost a cousin in Iraq to them. I intend to make my career out of killing such people. But not all Muslims are monsters, and they cannot be treated as such. To do so would be to adopt a medievalist Islamaphobic viewpoint full of poison. By directly attacking a people, whether they be united by race, country of origin, gender, or religion, you are being bigoted.

I have known many wonderful, good Muslims. Likewise, I have known many cruel, nasty Christians. The opposite applies to both groups. There is evil in the world, and there is good. But no one, and nothing is entirely good or evil. Never generalize- it makes you out to be exactly what you are being called: racist and bigoted. I dated a young man, a member of the Coast Guard, named Ali, a few months back. He treated me with more respect than almost any gentleman I have ever known. His family was accepting and kind. In the end, we broke it off because certain members of my family did not approve.

I come from a mixed religious household- my father is Jewish, my mother a Catholic. Yes, there is hated of Christianity. Yes, there is hatred of Judaism. And yes, there is hatred of Islam. Sharia is NOT practiced by all Muslims, just like how not all Mormons believe in plural marriage, and I'm sure none of us present believe in what Westboro Baptist Church does. Again, there are many moderate Muslims in the world. Do not allow the actions of some to influence your opinion of the whole. The vast majority of Muslims are NOT terrorists. Christianity produces evil people. Judaism produces evil people. People are evil because of an innate sickness, not because of their religion. Extremism exists in every religion. Have we forgotten the Crusades? There are wonderful, wonderful Muslims in America and overseas. I personally know many such people.

In Islam, Jesus is considered to be a Messenger of God who was sent to guide the People of Israel. The Qur'an mentions Jesus twenty-five times. It states that Jesus was born to Mary as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God. To aid in his ministry to the Jewish people, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles, all by the permission of God rather than his own power. There is actually a chapter of Mariam in the Qur'an- similar to books in our bible. She is mentioned more in the than in the entire New Testament and is also the only woman mentioned there by name.Mary is one of the most highly-regarded women in Islam; there are several verses in the Qur'an praising her and confirming that she was an extremely chaste and pious woman.

Muslims also believe in the same God as Christians and Jews. Traditionally, Muslims believe that the Arabic people are directly descended from Abraham's first son, Ishmael. It is the same God. Christians call Him God, Jews call Him Y-w-h, and Muslims call Him Allah. One God, three different followings.

I am not saying that the Arab history is without its evils. I never said that the Taliban was peace-loving. I lost a cousin to them. My career will be made up of fighting these forces. But we are not without our faults. Christian history is not blameless. What about Richard the Lionheart's massacre at Acre? 2,700 unarmed men women and children were killed that day. No side is without fault, they never are. And yes, the Taliban is evil. I will back you up on that. But Islam is not. The Taliban hurts Muslims as well as Christians and Jews and Hindus and anyone else. But the actions of one sect are not the actions of the whole.

I have my own opinions, and part of those derive from my own life experiences. One of those involve religious tolerance. I was raised in a mixed-religion household that, while very loving, involved an extended family that was far less from welcoming. Seeing the disaster religious conflict can be, on the most personal and painful level, make it abhorrent to me to condemn anyone's religion. Even if there is not good in the religion, or the branch, practiced, there is always some bit of good in the people. I am aware of the oppression of Sharia law. I also know that not all Muslims practice Sharia. There are different branches of Islam, just like in any other religion. Moderation exists everywhere, just as fanaticism. And so we, as freedom loving men and women must learn to not judge the many by the few, and live and let live.

On Government

2010-09-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."-- Thomas Paine

Never has this quote been more true than today. We are surrounded by a culture of corruption, a government more interested in furthering its own interests than what is right for the American people. We are living in a society on the verge of extinction, and the only thing that can save us is to cast off the shroud of passivity, look around us at what is happening, and try to change it. Wanting to change the way things are going isn’t enough- we have to try. Some people say fighting against the path our government is taking is cause for being labeled an extremist, or worse. But I would like to remind those people of a certain document: the Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Note the word liberty. I’m going to return to that concept later.

I will not proceed with my earlier train of thought, that being criticizing the direction in which our own government seems to be heading. That is not the purpose of this thesis. I will simply state what I believe.

A government is a creation of the people, not a means through which to control them. Governments must only be allowed a minimal intrusion into private life; any more than that is tyranny. Governments cannot correct personal mistakes, nor can they protect us from making those mistakes. That is what being free means- free to mess up, and therefore free to deal with the consequences of our actions. Not having a nanny state watch over us and make sure we never bump our heads or scrape our knees. If you want that, move.

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”—Thomas Jefferson

A government is instituted by the people for the people, and it is of the people. This idea is not just idle rhetoric- this is one of the principles upon which America was founded. And as we instituted the government, it is also our responsibility to make sure that it works for us. If it does not, it is perfectly in our right to tear it down and start anew. Note that I said government is supposed to work for us, not instead of us.

"Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people."—Grover Cleveland

Reread that quote. It is our duty to support our government, and to try to make it better and more efficient. It is not our government’s job to do the same for us. The government is bigger than me, and it’s bigger than you. But there are more people than there is government. Therefore, it is logical that we are holding it up, and not the other way around.

Individual people can make far more difference than the government. As I said before, the government may be bigger than any one of us, but there are more of us than there are of it, and as it is a creation of us, we have more power than it. So we can do a lot more good than any government ever could.

Life without liberty is like a body without spirit. —Kahlil Gibran

Now, a return to the topic of liberty, which has been mentioned in many of these quotes. According to the Random House dictionary, Liberty is “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control”, “freedom from external or foreign rule; independence” and “unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.”. All of these definitions include the word freedom. Freedom is said to be “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.”, “the power to determine action without restraint”, or “civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.”

The founders were, for the most part, educated men. I am positive they knew the definition of liberty. Such a strong term is seldom used lightly. And according to the principles of freedom and liberty, we cannot stand for oppression or intrusion by our government. That is not the government’s role. Their role is to govern, not to control. To govern, according to that same dictionary, is “to exercise a directing or restraining influence over”. In other words, to supervise, not to dictate. The president’s role is not to rule us- if it was, we would have kings, or dictators. President comes from the word “preside”, which means “to exercise guidance or direction”. Not to order around, but to guide.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. — Ronald Reagan

This final quote really sums up what I’m trying to say. Freedom is something that cannot be left alone. It must be kept alive and in the light, not shut away in some dark corner to be dusted off every few years and paraded about when it suits others. Freedom is an essential right- and we cannot forget it. I said in a previous note that if tomorrow, Lithuania adopted a new form of government, they would still be Lithuanians. The thing that makes us American is America, and all the freedoms that come with it. I think everyone reading this can trace their ancestry back to somewhere other than America. But the one thing that ties us all together is this country. Not the huge landmass, but the principles by which it is governed. Liberty and Justice for all. The ability to do what you want, but the knowledge that you will be held accountable for your actions. And that is what a government should uphold- no more, and certainly no less.

What do I want to be when I grow up??

2010-09-25T08:28:00.000-07:00

"So what are you going to be when you grow up?" When you're my age, you hear that all the time. Future teachers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, all lining up to boast about their futures in their respective careers. Seniors know exactly where their lives are headed. I do to, but my answer to the age old question from earnest parents and pesky college counselors tends to get a few more double takes, and has ever since I was a little girl of five years old answering it in Kindergarten. That day, I announced proudly, as I have every time asked ever since: "I want to be an officer in the United States Army!". This answer always prompts the simple question:

Why?

My grandfather's stories, both good and bad, about his time in post-WWII occupation of Germany first put this in my mind. After my other grandfather died, and I was given the task of going through his papers, I discovered he had been an Second Lieutenant in Korea. Most of what I am and what I want to be come from him. Between the two of them, the knowledge that my father served, and my personal determination and honor I have been determined to join for most of my life. Anyone who knows me knows I know more about the military than almost any kid my age. This is what I want to do, and what I worked towards since I was a tiny tot.

Next year, I enter the ROTC program. I can't wait. For me, this will be the first solid, concrete step towards the future I have wanted my entire life. And yes, by the by, my parents are very worried. What parents wouldn't be worried about their daughter wanting to join the military? But I know that this is my future, and honestly I cannot wait.

A simple introduction to politics- MilitaryCat style

2010-09-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

Before I get into this introduction, I must begin with my standard disclaimer. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Socialist, or Libertarian, or a Fascist, or any other crazy label you want to put on me. I do not like political parties, and I do not claim to endorse any of them. I think they’re all corrupt and ineffective.

Now as to what I believe. I believe in an America united in those principals upon which we were founded- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe in the ability of every man and woman to make their own choices, but along with that ability comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of your own actions. I honestly believe that America is the greatest country on earth and, with the very core of my being, believe in our exceptionalism. If tomorrow, Lithuania adopted a new form of government, they would still be Lithuanians. But our country is based on the principals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. It is based on the ideals that all men and women are created equal. Most people look at that line, and only see the word “equal”. I look at it this way: we are all created equal. We all come into this world crying and naked. But what we do with our lives after that is up to us. It is what we choose to believe, choose to make of ourselves that make us who and what we are. And what we are is Americans. We aren’t Republicans, or Democrats or Libertarians or anything else. No matter what any party says, I am going to stay an Independent because declaring myself a member of any party would mean I would have to agree with what they say. And we should learn to trust our instincts, not just go along with the crowd.

We need to look inside of ourselves, and see what we believe in; not just what people say we should believe in according to some party line. I used to think that. But now I see that I agree with Republicans on some things, Democrats on others, Libertarians on a few, and Socialists on almost nothing. We all need to stand together, and accept each other for what they believe. We need to give each other the courtesy of debate, really listen to what the other side is saying, and accept it as a valid opinion. We need to realize that we can change our minds without being flip-floppers. We need to recognize others’ opinions as something we may believe in some day. I just want to leave you with this thought: the solution to something complicated is not to throw it away. Any idea is valid, no matter how preposterous it sounds. We need to look at things, uncomplicated them, and rid this country of corruption. We need to not think of ourselves as members of parties, but as Americans, each with our own thoughts, opinions and values. And we, as Americans, need to stand together.

Healthcare, the Constitution, and What Happens Next

2010-03-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

As usual, I must begin with my standard disclaimer. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Socialist, or Libertarian, or a Fascist, or any other crazy label you want to put on me. I do not like political parties, and I do not claim to endorse any of them. I think they’re all corrupt and ineffective.

Now that that’s done, it’s time to get down to business. HB 3200, otherwise known as the healthcare bill, is a direct violation of the 10th amendment among other amendments. Right now, I know most of you are already composing angry replies in your head. But hear me out. If this bill simply taxed to provide health insurance for those who did not have it and wanted it, and said nothing about requiring all citizens to have insurance, it would have constitutionality. I read through the bill line by line (which is more than many members of congress can say, I guarantee you) and will cite where in the bill I found each provision I mention, just so you all have absolutely no excuse to go crazy on me.

HB 3200 (AKA the healthcare bill- I'm going to refer to it by it's proper name, just so I'm not tempted to use the term "Obamacare") requires citizens to have insurance. There is absolutely nothing in any provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to create or enforce any laws that control what kind of health care any citizen of the United States may take or refuse. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to require any citizen to have any health insurance of any kind or nature, or prevent any citizen from refusing any so called medical treatment or "advice" that they may choose to refuse. Being able to refuse healthcare is part of being free. Because of this, the provision of HB 3200 that dictates what health care, or health care insurance that any citizen of the United States may have or refuse is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. (p 29, lines 4-16; p 30, Sec 123; p 42; p. 84 Section 203; P. 85 line 7 and other sections)

But it’s not just the 10th Amendment. The 4th Amendment protects the "papers" of all citizens. Nevertheless, HB 3200 mandated that one of the new Federal Agencies set up by the program will audit all employers who self insure. This auditing is not something allowed or required by the 16th amendment to the Constitution (and can be argued to be a violation thereof), and without that, it is a clear violation of rights protected by the 4th Amendment. (p 22, HB 3200)

The 4th, 5th and the 14th Amendments both protect the citizens' right to own property without its being subject to seizure by the government without due process of law. However, HB 3200 gives the government direct access to all citizens' bank accounts for "real time" electronic funds transfers with or without the owner's ok and with no chance to object to the transfer and with no appeal thereof. This is in clear violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment which prohibits the taking of property without due process of law. (p 59 ll 21-24, p 85 Ll 7)

HB 3200 also says that no matter what skills or training the Doctors may have, the Government will be directing that all doctors are paid the same for services that the Government says will be allowed. The doctor is not allowed to make the call on what treatments to give the patient. The Constitution not only does not give the government the power to say how much a person can make, however it specifically prohibits the Federal Government from interfering with legal contractual negotiations or with legal contracts under the 5th Amendment. Therefore, the healthcare bill clearly violates the 5th and 10th amendments. (P 241 L 6-8 and p253 L 10-18)

According to HB 3200, individuals who don't have federal government acceptable health care will be taxed 2.5% of their gross income. This is not normally taxable, and may in select cases violate the 1st amendment rights of many of those people who are choosing to voice their objection to this legislation and is therefore a prior disincentive to their voicing their objection to such legislation. This is pure discrimination against Americans who have made a choice with which the Federal Government disagrees but has absolutely no power to legislate on under the 10th Amendment. It also violates the 16th Amendment which allows the Federal Government to assess income taxes for the raising of revenue for the federal government, but not at any point as a punishment for citizens who take an act the government dislikes- aka buying health insurance that the government has no legitimate power to require.This also could violate the 5th and 14th amendment. (P 167 Lines 18-23)

So, in summary, the constitutionality of this bill is majorly in question. It violates the 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, and 16th amendments to the constitution. Now, as a note, any member of Congress who voted for this bill violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

The Supreme Court rarely declares a law unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. However, with this overwhelming evidence to show the violations of these different amendments, the Court must declare it unconstitutional. Besides these facts, 12 states are already threatening to sue: Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Idaho has already signed legislation against the bill. Similar legislation is already pending in 37 other states. The next few weeks should be interesting to see what is done by the Court, the States, and Obama himself. This truly is historic legislation, though not, I fear, in the way our President would like it to be.