Church and State and the space in between

This nation was founded with the idea that all men and women could practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) that they wished with little to no interference from the government. Because of the government being set up as a contractual government (i.e. the people give the leaders the right to rule and expect fair and just treatment in return) it also expected little to no interference from religion. This is only a right way of thinking if one stops to consider it. In order to allow the practice of any religion or lack thereof, the government itself must be free from the moral and ethical confines of any one religion. It must relegate itself to reason and scientific inquiry in order to achieve the freedom we claim to hold so dear. Yet one religion in particular wants to assert dominance (albeit in a covert manner) over all the others and dominance over the laws of the land. This religion is Christianity. To say this, one must first understand that no claim is made as to the right or wrong character of Christianity or any claim to wish its existence gone. Neither of these is argued or will be argued. It is simply argued that a number of misguided individuals believe the nation should base its laws on Christian ethics and morality and not on what the facts actually say. In addition, these same people desire to have no aid in creating such a nation as they wish to remain tax free. As the saying goes, they wish to have their cake and eat it too. What these individuals refuse to confront is that to base laws not on rational and scientific means, but to base them on one very small subset of the population, denies the ethical considerations of the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the many other religions prevalent in our society. Thus far, the government has done little to interfere with the practice of any religion, but should organizations such as the Westboro Baptist "Church" (Their prevalence of social activities and large expenditure on them, their constant self instigated legal battles, and their lack of any coherent dogma or actual church membership-the "church" is almost exclusively the extended family of "rev." Phelps- makes it hard to take them seriously when they call themselves a church. e.g. by their definition my blog and our family meals are a church), and the numerous Senators and Representatives who pander to their constituents' emotional love of religion, continue then the government should step in. They enjoy a tax free and quiet existence, to ask for laws without even considering that those laws only benefit them and serve no purpose in a rational society, borders on political and not religious organization. In short, the ethical and moral guidelines of Christianity or any other religion have no place in politics. If our laws are based on one particular subset, it is always to the detriment of others. The law must be rational, not religious. Only when the law infringes on the practice of a religion (NOT simply offending them but actually prohibits them from worship in some tangible way) is that religion allowed to petition the government for its change. Any other political speech should , rationally and logically, be avoided by religion OR the religion should be taxed as any other corporation. The space between is the freedom afforded to religion to practice off of public roads and to use public utilities. Any further space invites the tyranny of a State Religion. What do you think? How should church and state be separated? Should they be separated? I look forward to your comments and the probably protest/lawsuit of the Westboro Baptist "Church".

Electric Racing motorcycles for the Police, now I'm angry

RE: http://news.msn.com/science-technology/lapd-tests-out-new-electric-motorcycles
I am an avid supporter of the enforcement of law (except when that law contradicts the natural rights of man, e.g. the right to use a medicine approved by the AMA for over 40 years, marijuana, under the care of a licensed physician. I support them following orders, except orders that contradict the Constitution like the suspension of Habeas Corpus. I donate directly to them every year. I even support them upgrading their existing equipment to better serve the public (i.e. electronic fingerprinting, e-filing of reports, GPS on cars, cars that are more fuel efficient,etc. But the one thing I can't stand is some cop coming up with a budget proposal for an item the force has no need for (a racing bike) and then pushing it through with the unfounded claim that it will catch more "crooks" than the current equipment. With all this mess over the current budget and the impending default, it seems downright negligent to spend money on something so frivolous and that has no proven potential to be any better than the current equipment apart from a manufacturer's claim and a cop's desire to ride a BMX bike on his job. Do these people even take their job seriously? Do they not realize that their sole goal as police officers is to enforce the law and protect the public, NOT go on a Toys 'R Us spree? Let me know what you think, are these expenses justified and if so, how? I look forward to your comments.

Why Boehner is pissing me off

The foundation of modern politics is the vote. Even though we as Americans don't typically vote in large numbers, we expect our representatives to vote on everything. Look at the committee system, we vote a formation committee, vote who is on it, vote what they will discuss, vote on their votes, vote on the votes they voted on, and then vote on that as well! Boehner's refusal to allow a vote on anything is not just shameful, but should be considered as treason. He may not like the outcome, but then again he may, the only way to know is to put all the issues to a vote and allow the chips to fall where they may. I am not fond of many of the votes of the Florida legislature (which at times border on the idiotic) but I respect them as law because they were arrived at by a vote of duly elected officials. Boehner's refusal to allow a vote on one issue that he doesn't like is a tyrannical Speaker holding Congress at bay at the expense of the Federal Government, our economy, and our very people all because he can't stomach the US funding a law that was upheld by the highest Court and made by the self-same congress he is inhibiting. He will be the downfall of the once noble Republican party. What do you think of Boehner and his actions?

The Best Bet

As the shutdown continues and loathing of the Republican party grows steadily, it would seem that Boehner would look to the future of the country and the impending default crisis (and the ensuing aftermath) and just agree to a budget that funds healthcare. If, as the Republicans have been crying for ever, Obamacare is more damaging to the healthcare of the nation than the current arrangement, it will not take long for the American people to realize it and they will do exactly as the Republicans want them to (i.e. vote Republican in the next congressional election cycle and return control of the Senate to the Republicans, thus killing the healthcare bill legitimately and as grown adults, not the children everyone is acting like now). If, however Obamacare is the idea that Democrats believe it to be, then the Republicans will have done the right thing in allowing their own personal hangups to be pushed aside for the good of the nation. Either way, this bullheaded ideal of holding out because they don't want to fund a law that was passed by both houses of Congress and has stood the test of the Supreme Court simply because they don't like it and believe it violates some non-elaborated moral standard is at best irresponsible, and at worst, an evil beyond compare (Standing ground for rational beliefs is commendable, this is not that). If they ever hope to regain control of congress and pass laws they believe will benefit the American people, they must show that their interest is not narcissistic but rather the interest of the people and their economy. The best bet to do this is to pass a fully funded budget and let the people decide for themselves the benefits or liabilities of Obamacare.

Oh Florida, What have the Georges Done?

Due to a disability that reared its ugly head in 2011 (Spinal stenosis and numerous herniated and ruptured discs) I require (per my doctors) a pain medicine that comes as a patch called Fentanyl.  It is a schedule II substance that can, if not used as directed, become highly addictive.  This would be all well and good if it weren't for an incident that was so grievous and took so many lives, that access to this medicine, which allows me to get out of bed without enormous pain, was restricted to the point of absurdity.  The incident involved two brothers, the Brothers George as it were, and due to the length of its tale can be read here:  http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/07/11542417-how-florida-brothers-pill-mill-operation-fueled-painkiller-abuse-epidemic?lite .  In short, these two brothers operated hundreds of fast food pain clinics that in essence allowed people to walk in, pay an enormous sum, and walk out with far more narcotics than they could reasonably use.  Its impact can not be understated, they caused the death of tens of thousands of people and spurred lawmakers to assume that this was the trend all across the board.  Tracking systems were put into place to track who uses narcotics, how often they fill, how much and what they fill, and who writes the prescriptions.  Doctors, in fear, stopped writing these medicines and pharmacies instituted quotas that regardless of how many patients they had that needed the medicine, they would only be supplied with and fill so many narcotic prescriptions.  This, coupled with the fact that Florida refuses to allow wider use of non-narcotic pain medicines (like Marinol which has been shown to reduce pain without the nasty side effects) has made life for those of us with legitimate pain (and mountains of documentation showing it is legitimate) to obtain the medicines needed to make life bearable and help make us more productive.  It would seem here that two bad apples spoiled the bunch.

Ignoring the invasion of privacy these tracking systems employ (Florida rejected systems that would only disclose sensitive information if a crime was suspected by the system) one must wonder what the goal of the legislature is?  Though tens of thousands of lives were lost, it is less than the lives taken by meth, heroin, cocaine, and other much more dangerous drugs.  Would not a more targeted measure against those who seek only to abuse these medicines be a more ethical approach or must all of us suffer for these two very bad apples?  Is it not ridiculous to assume that all doctors are pill pushers and all patients are addicts?  And what of those who need help relieving their pain, do they not deserve a better quality of life than this?  My pharmacist and family look at me like I'm a heroin pusher every time I fill a legitimate prescription and use it EXACTLY as directed.  Do I not deserve better than this, especially when my need is documented by MRIs (numerous) and XRAYs as well as several agreeing independent evaluations?

Of course I ask these questions but you may be thinking, well that's Florida, not my state.  It is foolhardy to tread that road because time and time again states will follow the most restrictive policies if their citizens do not speak up.  What do you think, is Florida's policy fair, and if it were you, how would you feel about it given my condition?  I welcome responses as always.

[polldaddy poll=7452280]

 

Oh the wonderful things you will not see because "there's nothing to see here, move along"

I am fortunate to have many friends and relatives who are either serving or have served in our nation's armed forces. I know at least one person in every branch either active or retired. The military is nothing to mock or scoff at as they defend this nation and fight in our wars even when they disagree with the principles behind those wars. My father served many years and was granted unparalleled access and taught me to respect those who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend my ability to post this blog.
That aside, there are a few things about the military that may distrub you. For example, though pledged to defend our Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the law of the military if you will) allows certain parts of the Constitution to "not apply" as it were to military members. For example, the First Amendment protects our liberty to speak our minds (so long as we do not encourage or endorse criminal activity), petition our government for a redress of grievances (through protest, the court system, writing letters to congresspersons, etc.), practice what religion we will (so long as certain tenants of the law are upheld), and assemble freely (again, the right to protest, strike, etc.). This fundamental right, however, can and is suspended in some cases for military members. They may not protest their government or its actions even if they obey orders, during certain times they can not contact their representatives, in fact the only premise the military seems to endorse is the religious freedom, but even that hinges on the availability of a chaplain of that religion being present (and chaplains are in short supply). Even the amendments protecting the rights of the accused, such as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incrimination may be suspended at will by the Pentagon and/or superior officers.
What do we make of this? It would seem that those who defend the rights we hold dear are subject to the abridging of those rights in the name of efficiency and "security". Sometimes, it is true, these rights must be suspended, e.g. in the midst of battle, protesting marines would be highly devastating. But what of those affected who are not in the line of fire? Should we as citizens not protect their rights just as they protect ours? And why a Court Martial of persons on American soil? Could our criminal justice system not adequately handle the affair? It would seem that our military is its own state whose obligation to the Constitution is only its defense. The question then becomes is this right? What do you think? Go and read the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ask yourself if all of its provisions protect those who serve as they protect us:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47 (UCOMJ)

Race in the 21st Century

Race (i.e. the subdivision of humans as being genetically differentiated into different groups) is a myth. Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. are all different only by the amount of melanin in their skin and certain perceived differences that when looked at on the whole, are entirely superficial. Take any two persons of different "races" (A brief note, on the US Census you determine what race you are, there are no scientific definitions provided, simply what race you believe you are) and strip away the skin and you will see identical body structure. Evaluate the genome and you will find only that certain people produce more melanin. If this seems offensive, consider the following skin tone chart:

Now, decide at which point one race ends and another begins. Though it may be easy to say the darkest tone is black and the lightest white, it is difficult, if not impossible to make agreeable differences in between. Every person has their own definition of what color constitutes what race. In addition, modern evidence suggests that all humans originated in Africa and the Middle East and then spread out across the globe. Differences in skin tone developed as a way of the body coping with different climates. Differences in body mass and fat distribution did the same. Both of these over millennia of human history. Research has shown no difference in brain mass and indeed apart from superficial differences in skin tone and other environmental changes (e.g. hair type, fat distribution, etc.) no difference at all. All humans share the same genetic code and because of this, it is impossible to divide us into subsets according to any reliable method because no subsets exist.
All of this is not to say that groups that identify with one race or another do not share cultural differences. These differences however, come from heritage and not a division of race. Cultural differences should of course be respected, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that any human is better or worse than any other human. Moreover, we should not fool ourselves into thinking our self-created race identifications have any significance to anyone but the individual. White, black, yellow, red, green, or even purple polka dots (would be interesting to see that one) are simply natural reactions to the climate that person's ancestors chose to live in and reflect in no way the individual's capacity. Martin Luther King Jr. knew this and envisioned a day when all colors of people came together and were not judged by their color but by their character. This day, despite mountains of scientific evidence showing our sameness, has yet to come. Bigotry, hatred, and fear still abound. Though we like to think ourselves sophisticated, we are still the same fearful and racist nation we have always been (with some refreshing exceptions). We still look for ways to divide. We look at race, political party, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. any excuse to consider ourselves superior and others inferior. If we ever hope to make any progress, we must stop this foolhardy way of thinking and instead look to what unites us, and consider all men and women equal. Only then can we have a dialogue and come together to fix our nation and our world.

The Legacy of John Brown

Prior to the civil war there was a man who saw the status quo and did something about it. John Brown raided Harper's Ferry Virginia, then a Federal Arsenal, with the intent of overthrowing a government he saw as lazy and unwilling to correct a grievous evil, i.e. the institution of slavery and the Dredd Scott decision. While I can not legally advocate the overthrow of our government by force, I do advocate the courage of John Brown. We are on the third day of a partial shutdown of our federal government. People are without jobs (people who unlike their "representatives" can not afford to be without a paycheck), our stock market which drives not only our own but the entire world's economy is sinking lower and lower, our so-called representatives and president are bickering, and we sit doing absolutely nothing about the entire affair. Documents are released showing that our tax money is going to fund an agency that spies on itself and we do nothing. However unlikely to succeed he may have been, at least John Brown stood up for what he believed in and rallied the people to his cause. It was the image of him hanging in Virginia that spurred on the election of Abraham Lincoln and started the Civil war. It was his legacy that got people in the North to have the courage to do something, whether it was write in support of abolitionism, or fight on the front lines to free the slave in the South. And though this is not a Civil War, this is a dire time, that requires the courage of John Brown. Will we answer the call and reform our government or will we allow them to trample over us and continue their path to our destruction?

Reverence Today

Out of Reverence for the passing of a wonderful woman, my Aunt Faye, there will be no post today. Please keep our family in your prayers.

Who's REALLY to Blame?

The shutdown of our Federal government over the so-called Obamacare has left many newscasters asking "Who's to blame?" Their question is, of course, only a ploy for ratings but it is a question that they have only offered a couple of answers to, The President, The GOP, or the Democrats. Unfortunately the answer to this question is none of the above. While it is true that each has a part to play in all this mess, we must press past the superficial if we want to see who is really to blame (although that begs the question of why we are playing the blame game instead of blowing up our congressmen and women's mailboxes and emails with action demands). While the President's ultimatum and the GOP/Democrats unwillingness to yield and compromise is certainly a blame worthy offense, it is we who are to blame. Study after study shows that the typical voter doesn't vote their Senator or Representative in based on their platform or even their personal beliefs, but is directly related to how much money is spent on a campaign. More often than not we vote based on fundraising rather than true representation of what we as Americans believe. It is a despicable and ignorant way of choosing those who will directly change the very landscape of America and her policies, and we know this so we cast blame on those we the people elected. It is, to some small degree their fault but ultimately the blame lies directly on us the voters for caring more about the glitz and glamour of a politician rather than their actual policies and beliefs. If we are to cast blame, we must cast it to those who truly deserve it, ourselves. Now get out there and stop this mess by calling, writing, faxing, emailing, etc. your congressman or woman and if you don't, then take what you deserve without complaining. Those who fail to act forfeit their right to complain. What do you think?
[polldaddy poll=7439769]