Gay Marriage

It is one of the most amazing things to see when a society refuses to grant a right that would seem to be so simple, the right to love and live with whoever one wants to. Yet this is what is happening in America today. The Land of the Free is lagging behind the Old World of Europe and clinging to an ideology at odds with the very foundations of America. Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist Papers recommended to our young nation that we keep religion and state separate. Remarkably the people that are against the idea of gay marriage (marriage as a state institution, not marriage as a religious one since our laws do not cover what a religion recognizes as valid) are almost exclusively against it because it would somehow taint the "holiness" of the United States. They have no qualms, however, with accepting tax exemption and would argue that religion should be separate from the state in that matter. It would seem they want to have their cake and eat it too. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage as a state institution should be available to all and should not be exclusively held by those who are heterosexual. Marriage to the person one loves simply, from a state standpoint, means that two people wish to enter into an exclusive contract with certain binding terms that sets that relationship apart from friendship. It is not, from the standpoint of the state, a matter that concerns religion at all. If those who wish to ban it based on their religious beliefs persist in their public opposition, they should also be willing to be taxed and nonexempt from their other public duties (nondiscrimination laws, etc.). If they are unwilling to do so, then they should be willing to allow the state to extend the right to marry to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender. What do you think? Should gays be allowed to marry?
[polldaddy poll=7424473]

The Right to know

When Edward Snowden made his disclosures regarding the NSA's actions against their own citizens and against our allies abroad, Americans responded with a less than adequate level of disgust. Senators, attempting to pander to their constituents called him a traitor and used words like "treason" and "terrorist". Americans still did not respond. The question, however, remains one of immense importance regardless of the response of the citizenry. Do we have the right to know what the government is doing? In matters like the Manhattan Project it was an easy question to answer. During that time citizens knowing what the government was doing could have put the whole world at risk. This time, however, is much different. We are not talking about a weapon or even the plans of a war, we are talking about domestic surveillance of innocent people with the remote chance a threat might be found. As a free society, we have the right and the duty to know that our government is conducting these kinds of activities. We have the right to know when our government is putting us at risk by listening to our allies covertly. They are, after all, our allies and we should do everything we can to make sure that alliance is not jeopardized by some power hungry bureaucracy. Our senators responding by calling him names and attempting to extradite him so vigorously should raise the alarm that Snowden's disclosures were only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed I wonder if this post will not subject me to surveillance by the government I have put my faith in to protect me. The right of the people to know the abuses of power of their government is an absolute. The right to privacy is what separates us from the people who seek to destroy us. It does not mean we are doing anything wrong (I use the restroom in private and I am not doing anything wrong, it is simply something I have the right to choose not to share with my government) it simply means we are exercising a fundamental right that all men and women should have. Snowden is not a traitor or terrorist, he is a refugee from a government that is rapidly heading towards a Big Brother kind of society. The reaction of the citizenry is not just disappointing, but disgusting. We can raise troops of protesters for a murder in Florida, but we can't even raise a finger to petition our own government to stop their heinous crimes against their own citizens. Both issues are important, and we must, to continue to live free, react equally as vigorously to the revelations of Mr. Snowden as we did to the acquittal of Mr. Zimmerman. What do you think about Edward Snowden?
[polldaddy poll=7422535]

Euthanasia

I have been watching my Aunt Faye slowly die over the past month in hospice. At times she was lucid, but now she slips deeper and deeper into sleep. It started me thinking of an old debate that still occasionally comes up in our legislative halls. Should we allow those who have passed beyond all hope of recovery choose to die with dignity and intentionally (i.e. through the administration of Nembutal or another barbiturate that overdoses them and allows them to sleep until death)? I believed at one point that this was an unconscionable act that doctors should never even contemplate but now I am not so sure. Our lives, much like our property, belongs and is owned by us and though it may affect others, it still is ours to do with as we please. We have no qualms with allowing people to kill themselves or put themselves in harms way through other means (e.g. cigarettes, alcohol, texting while driving, etc.) but we seem to believe that to allow another to end our life intentionally when we are suffering with no or very little hope of recovery is an act akin to murder. But why? Why are we so intent on this? While it is true that miracles can and do happen, they are not as a matter of course a regular occurrence. And if an adult, in their right mind (not depressed or under the influence) decides that they do not want to continue to suffer, should we not afford them the right to make that decision? Is it not more painful to the family to watch someone slowly die than to allow them the chance to die as they wish? I believe it is. It does not make sense that we refuse to give people complete control of their life (including their death which is a part of every life) yet argue so ardently that life begins at conception and has human rights then. We give the unborn more rights than those who have faithful served their society and only wish to end their life in a manner of their choosing. Of course I do not believe that those who are depressed or are unable to make a rational decision either through drugs or mental illness should be afforded this right, that would be fool-hardy. Yet as I watch my Aunt Faye slowly die before my eyes I can't help but feeling and knowing that this is NOT the way she would have chosen to go if she had another option. For now I must be content to know that as she slips away at least she is not in pain. This, however, is little comfort. What do you think?
[polldaddy poll=7418461]

What the Founders Intended

It irks me to no end to hear our Representatives and Senators go on and on about what the founders of our nation meant when they wrote our Constitution. It would seem the answer would be plain enough: The founders intended this nation and its Constitution to live and grow with the changing times. They had no intention of any founding documents to be static and unchanging; indeed they provided for the means to change them in the first place! Our system, however, has become so bogged down with the trappings of the founders' intentions that they have created a stale Constitution with innumerable laws and bureaucracy binding it to a point that the United States is choking on the vomit of its own lawmakers and the judiciary that interprets these laws (their interpretations, by the way, change with which party is currently in power). Yet even these the founders foresaw in incorporating into our Constitution a way for the people to change the very nature of the entire system. This way is the Constitutional Convention. Our last and only one was with the Articles of Confederation. It was then that we realized the utter uselessness of the current Confederation and drafted the Constitution we have today. This, of course, forces one to wonder if it is time to call another convention and bring this stale system a breath of fresh air. I have posted a poll on this subject and would love to discuss this option. Please vote.

Speaking out against the government

We as Americans are not terribly fond of unnecessary restrictions on our liberty, yet many slip past us day in and day out.  Years ago one in particular slipped past because it was attached to a legitimate concern, i.e. the forcible overthrow of the government.  While I would never publish or advocate such an idea (it is, after all, illegal to do so) I do believe that it is important that the people know that the very foundation of this nation (questioning the legitimacy of the current ruler, then King George III) has been for some time outlawed.  The law reads that anyone who writes, publishes, speaks publicly or privately, etc. in favor of the forcible overthrow of ANY government (from the Federal government to the local homeowner's association) commits a felony.  I personally believe that all peaceful means should be exhausted before resorting to force in any situation, however this is not the issue.  The issue is that it is illegal to even communicate a thought that the government has gotten too big for its britches (to use a good old southern term) and should be taken down.  This idea, illuminated by John Locke and adopted by Thomas Jefferson that government is by consent of the government and that any government that becomes oppressive affords the people the right to revolt is at the very foundation of our nation.  To revolt should, of course, be considered treason by the ruling class because they have a right to defend themselves.  To communicate ideas, however, is a fundamental right of the people, no matter how abhorrent to the ruling class or to other people.  The right to speak, so long as it does not immediately endanger others (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) should be the priority of those who claim to protect liberty.  These days, however, those that we elect to protect liberty seem to have one goal...to destroy it.  That however is a different post.

Social Insecurity

It has been over 2 and 1/2 years since I first requested help with my disability.  I still am waiting on a hearing date that I am told will come soon.  This, however, is not the issue.  I have paid into the system more than 5 times the amount required to collect.  I did so with the idea (given to me as a child) that I was paying into it so that when I needed it, I could be taken care of.  This, as it tuns out, could not be further from the truth.  I have had to jump through hoops (despite 5 doctors and 2 MRI's showing the extent and disabling aspect of my illness), argue with disrespectful government employees (who seem to forget that government is by consent of the governed), and be essentially called a liar, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  I have also gotten to see people who can walk without assistance and even run and jump, as well as take care of themselves, who ARE receiving these benefits.  I press on though, hoping that the ALJ will have the wisdom to recognize that no employer in their right mind would hire someone who can't lift a gallon of water, has to alternate sitting and standing frequently, has little grip in his left hand, and must take powerful narcotics just to control the pain of his illness.  I have tried and tried, but my illness prevents me from doing even the most sedentary work.  Unless one believes Dr. Kibria (who, by the way, works out of a Sunglass Hut!) I simply can not perform the jobs that social security believes I can (i.e. Laminator I-requires clear head since it deals with heavy machinery so narcotics probably wouldn't be ideal; Label Addresser-a position that has not been in existence since the 80's unless volunteering for a local congressman is a "job" and, on top of that, would require typing at a decent speed, something my weakness in my left hand prevents; and finally Surveillance System Monitor-a position which would necessitate long periods of sitting as well as moving up and down stairs which I have a VERY difficult time doing, and would also require a clean background, which I do not have).  So it boils down to this, Social Security has no desire to pay those who are truly disabled, only those who can fake it long enough to convince them.  I am not and will not fake anything.  I have paid my dues, and now it is time for the government to pay what they said they would or at the very least, refund my money.  These are the only 2 moral and ethical solutions, of course we all know ethical behavior is not a strong point of our federal government.