Hello everyone. O.K. , O.K. I know I said I was done. The hardest part about coming back is that I feel like I'm not being "A Man of My Word". I like to be a person you can trust, who says something and stands behind it. Good or Bad. But, I have so much I want to tell you that I'm about to burst at the seams. The elections are coming up and issues of free speech and personal liberties are everywhere and even though I still feel my chances of influencing anyone are slim, I have to try. So, as an opening piece I'm running this old clip of Frank Zappa on "Crossfire". (It don't get any stranger than this!) Frank brings up some great issues on censorship and it falls in line with how I feel. Enjoy and think.
Showing posts with label Individual Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Individual Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
| [+/-] |
Free Speech Frank |
Thursday, May 24, 2007
| [+/-] |
ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS LOSING THEIR MINDS? |
Here at my University we sometimes poke a little fun at our friends in the Psychology Dept. The running joke is,"You want apples? Look in an Apple Tree. You want nuts? Look in Psychology." The joke stems from the fact that some (but not all) of our Psychology faculty are, well, a little unusual. I always say, being too introspective is not healthy, psychologists seem to prove that point. Maybe it's just that a large percentage of them got into psychology to find out what's wrong with themselves, whatever the reason, a lot of them seem to be nuttier than the people they study.
This seems to be proving itself over and over in some of the stories that have been coming out lately about the antics of Psychology professors on behalf of the loony left.
I found this story some time ago and I think it well defines what I'm talking about here. It seems that back in 1999, two University psychology professors and a grad professor, (and I'll gladly call them out by name) Bruce Rind from Temple University, Philip Tromovitch from the University of Pennsylvania and Robert Bauserman from the University of (Gasp, my home state) Michigan, co-authored a study called, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," in which they attempted to justify having child-adult sex by claiming that there was no measurable socio-emotional or psychological damage to the victim. (For those of you who put absolute faith in this kind of garbage, this is a classic example of the kind agenda-driven crap that is spewed by Universities). Further, I had an opportunity to listen to these Profs try to defend their study on-air. Their defense was typical of what you hear around our campus, that morality is Subjective and that other cultures (usually Stone-Age), have sex with their children and since it is accepted, the children and adults see no harm, and with the absence of condemnation and guilt, everyone lives a well adjusted, happy life. Most of these assumptions come from talking with the village elders who do most of the raping and the submissive victims who fear being punished once the outsiders leave. Having seen the result of children who were molested myself, this is either a complete perversion of the truth or the product of sick twisted minds to flat out lie to further their hopeful agenda of being able to have sex with not only college students that they can manipulate, but children as well. I usually try to be as fair as I can be to both sides of any argument, but these people make me sick to my stomach.
The second example I have for you is a little more recent. It comes from a Conference on World Affairs panel at Boulder High located in Boulder, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado has seen great change in it's culture over the last few decades with Liberalism becoming the norm in most of it's school systems. This example is rather typical of some of the changes the left sees as "Progressive". One of the scheduled speakers for that night was Joel Becker, a Los Angeles clinical psychologist, Dr. Becker started his speech to high school students with this sentence, "I'm going to encourage you to have sex, and I'm going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately," Joel went on to say, "And why I am going to take that position is because you're going to do it anyway." This is typical left-wing thought, agree or not, this is a left wing position, that some things are unavoidable, so therefore we should accept it and not even try to discourage it while doing our best to assure that the children do it safely. Dr. Becker went on to say that children should be encouraged to experiment with masturbation, homosexuality, group sex and drugs to enhance the experience. It should be noted here that the Conference was mandatory and that no opposing point of view was given. It should also be pointed out that some of the students were below the age of consent and that the drugs he was encouraging the students to use "appropriately" were illegal. The very worst part of all this was that it was defended by the school administration.
Now, there is an important lesson here that every one should be aware of. On University campuses, advocates are very proud of their efforts to represent oppressed groups. The problem is; as people become more and more accepting of different cultures, sexualities, and ethnic groups, it leaves these people looking harder and harder for anyone to represent. Advocacy groups and the people who lead them enjoy their power, should their goal be met, they certainly are not going to disband their groups and go about their business. A good example is MADD, (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), when it was originally formed, their goal was to toughen drunk driving law. The woman who originally formed the group left several years ago when she felt the group had met it's goal, but the people in MADD weren't about to give up their power, connections, and profitable positions, so they continued on without her to push for more and more drinking laws that can only have one conclusion; the outlawing of alcohol completely. It is the same with these people. As homosexuality becomes more accepted, these people will have no choice but to move on to the next taboo, and the next taboo will be child-adult sex. They will argue, as they already have, that it is our Judea-Christian upbringing that is the cause of us being morally against child-adult sex. They will argue that "Age of Consent" is debatable and they will push to have it lowered and lowered. They will position themselves as being "Progressive" and "Open minded" and those against it as intolerant and oppressive. They will, as they already have, use questionable data designed to further their agenda, and just as MADD's end result can only be the outlawing of alcohol, they're end result can only be the elimination of all judgment and morality. There is a fight over the morality of this country and it is being fought by the left through philosophy and psychology. I'm willing to have that debate because I know I'm on the side of protecting children and being the kind of responsible father, grandfather and citizen that this country needs. I will judge and I invite people to judge me. To the scum-bag people who are now pushing for the acceptance of Child-Adult sex through psychology I give this piece of advice; "Psychologist, heal thy self." H.C.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
| [+/-] |
ARMING THE ABUSED |
Females in this country are being abused and even killed at an alarming rate. Among females in the U.S., approximately 1 in 3 homicides are intimate partner homicides. The nonfatal rate of sexual assault for females is 4.8 times higher than that for males. In 2004, 1,157 women were killed by their intimate partner. In addition, 4,450,807 women were assaulted in 2006 in this country. According to estimates from the NVAWS, 322,230 rapes occur against women each year. Slightly more than one-third of these rapes (36.2%) result in physical injuries. Women, it seems, are the preferred target for aggression by men, and it's no wonder, women are far less likely to be armed.
I speak to this issue from experience, when I was young, my Mother was an abused woman. The amount of fear and physical abuse that women can suffer at the hands of an abusive man can not be overstated. John Lennon once said that "women are the nigger of the world". I have to agree, while black people at least have some countries where they are in power, women are mistreated everywhere, and here in the U.S. is no exception.
The answer to women being seen as easy victims, at least from my point of view, lies in this quote; "God made men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal." If you really want to see an asshole guy change his tune, point a gun at him. Better yet, load up some of the available rubber bullets and knock him on his ass. Women; you want true equality? Buy a gun and learn how to use it. I have two daughters and both of them have used shot guns and know the safety lessons to handle them correctly. I do not want my daughters to be defenseless should some ex-boyfriend come around looking to assert his dominance. Say what you want, they know how to defend themselves.
I know what some of you are thinking. H.C., if you give these women guns, they'll just be taken away from them and then used against them. That only happens in a small percentage of armed conflicts despite what you see on T.V. However, in order to make it happen even less, follow this advice. First off, you should never pull out a gun unless you feel that you are in serious danger. Second, when you pull one out you should have every intention of using it if the person your pointing it at does not retreat. This is where rubber bullets excel. I recommend using one in the chamber for the first shot, then backed up by the real thing. All the rubber bullets I've seen come plainly marked so that you can't confuse them with the harder hitting stuff, but just the same, they should only be used if you feel your safety is seriously threatened. You don't necessarily need to get a handgun either, (although if you are being stalked you should consider getting one.) Shotguns come in a variety of sizes and a small .410 will do the job with very little kick. Loaded up with rubber pellets, it will take a man off his feet at 20 yards. The trick to not getting your gun taken away from you is to never allow your adversary to get close enough to try it.
Gun control advocates are constantly trying to convince women that arming themselves is a bad idea, but as the evidence in my first paragraph demonstrates, not arming yourselves is not working out very well. Women are lolled into a false sense of security by alarm systems or by getting a Personal Protection Order (PPO). None of that will protect you if your problem is determined to have his way.
In fact, as I often do, I have a little solution to the problem of guys (or even girls sometimes) who figure the best way to get you to love them is to make you fear them. After you have sought and received a PPO, I believe that your State should then allow you to apply for a express CCW (your right to carry a gun on your person). You would have to get the normal background check and a one day training exercise with a gun on a range. Now the best part of my plan; after you receive your CCW, a postcard would be sent to the person who is terrorizing you informing them that you are now armed and that it is recommended that they obey the PPO. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of assholes will rethink their stalking ways. The rest of them we will bury, thereby improving the gene pool.
The left wants you to believe that protecting yourself is a bad idea, but the truth is criminals prefer unarmed victims. From 1993 to 2001, the number of murders in the U.S. dropped 36% and the murders by firearm dropped 41%. Is it just a coincidence that during that time we started issuing Right To Carry permits in states? Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976. (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted Right To Carry, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million, and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates. There may be other factors that contribute to these successes, but it's hard to ignore the impact of armed citizens. The way I see it, we can arm the abused women in this country and save lives or we can do the Politically Correct thing and watch them be terrorized. I can not see how any Feminist can stand idly by while women hide and submit simply because their left-leaning tendencies won't allow them to back something they know in their heart will save lives. It's time for all women to take a stand and say, "On this day, I will hide no more. Any man who thinks he can terrorize me will meet his equal. Thanks to Sam Colt." H.C.
I speak to this issue from experience, when I was young, my Mother was an abused woman. The amount of fear and physical abuse that women can suffer at the hands of an abusive man can not be overstated. John Lennon once said that "women are the nigger of the world". I have to agree, while black people at least have some countries where they are in power, women are mistreated everywhere, and here in the U.S. is no exception.
The answer to women being seen as easy victims, at least from my point of view, lies in this quote; "God made men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal." If you really want to see an asshole guy change his tune, point a gun at him. Better yet, load up some of the available rubber bullets and knock him on his ass. Women; you want true equality? Buy a gun and learn how to use it. I have two daughters and both of them have used shot guns and know the safety lessons to handle them correctly. I do not want my daughters to be defenseless should some ex-boyfriend come around looking to assert his dominance. Say what you want, they know how to defend themselves.
I know what some of you are thinking. H.C., if you give these women guns, they'll just be taken away from them and then used against them. That only happens in a small percentage of armed conflicts despite what you see on T.V. However, in order to make it happen even less, follow this advice. First off, you should never pull out a gun unless you feel that you are in serious danger. Second, when you pull one out you should have every intention of using it if the person your pointing it at does not retreat. This is where rubber bullets excel. I recommend using one in the chamber for the first shot, then backed up by the real thing. All the rubber bullets I've seen come plainly marked so that you can't confuse them with the harder hitting stuff, but just the same, they should only be used if you feel your safety is seriously threatened. You don't necessarily need to get a handgun either, (although if you are being stalked you should consider getting one.) Shotguns come in a variety of sizes and a small .410 will do the job with very little kick. Loaded up with rubber pellets, it will take a man off his feet at 20 yards. The trick to not getting your gun taken away from you is to never allow your adversary to get close enough to try it.
Gun control advocates are constantly trying to convince women that arming themselves is a bad idea, but as the evidence in my first paragraph demonstrates, not arming yourselves is not working out very well. Women are lolled into a false sense of security by alarm systems or by getting a Personal Protection Order (PPO). None of that will protect you if your problem is determined to have his way.
In fact, as I often do, I have a little solution to the problem of guys (or even girls sometimes) who figure the best way to get you to love them is to make you fear them. After you have sought and received a PPO, I believe that your State should then allow you to apply for a express CCW (your right to carry a gun on your person). You would have to get the normal background check and a one day training exercise with a gun on a range. Now the best part of my plan; after you receive your CCW, a postcard would be sent to the person who is terrorizing you informing them that you are now armed and that it is recommended that they obey the PPO. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of assholes will rethink their stalking ways. The rest of them we will bury, thereby improving the gene pool.
The left wants you to believe that protecting yourself is a bad idea, but the truth is criminals prefer unarmed victims. From 1993 to 2001, the number of murders in the U.S. dropped 36% and the murders by firearm dropped 41%. Is it just a coincidence that during that time we started issuing Right To Carry permits in states? Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976. (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted Right To Carry, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million, and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates. There may be other factors that contribute to these successes, but it's hard to ignore the impact of armed citizens. The way I see it, we can arm the abused women in this country and save lives or we can do the Politically Correct thing and watch them be terrorized. I can not see how any Feminist can stand idly by while women hide and submit simply because their left-leaning tendencies won't allow them to back something they know in their heart will save lives. It's time for all women to take a stand and say, "On this day, I will hide no more. Any man who thinks he can terrorize me will meet his equal. Thanks to Sam Colt." H.C.
Friday, May 4, 2007
| [+/-] |
RAGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT |
As most of you know by now, I'm a big proponent of free speech. Time and time again I've railed on about the squelching of free speech by advocates, Universities, schools, conservatives and even the Internet. Here's a great example of how Universities are doing it again, thanks to Nic for providing the link. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/23/professor.fired.ap/index.html
However, if you've been reading me for very long, you also know that I always include this caveat when talking about free speech, "Except for calling for direct violence." We all know that free speech has some limits, and where those limits are is open for debate. My University, for example, writes limits on me into my contract. I can not call my University out by name on anything that it does or I'll risk being terminated. (The reason I write under a pseudonym and hide my face). I guess I really don't have that big a problem with it, they do, after all, pay me. The question is; what would they consider to be problem speech? I basically worry every time I mention my opposition to gun control, gay marriage, or radical advocacy. I do however agree with them on one issue, no one should be calling for direct violence.
Which leads me to why I'm writing this post.
It seems the other day (4/30) Rage Against the Machines' current frontman, Zach De La Rocha went into a tirade against the Bush Administration during one of their concerts. Now, I really don't care in the least what a band that is so pitiful they couldn't even write good music with Chris Cornell, a gifted voice and songwriter, has to say about politics. But, there is an issue here that is far larger than the rantings of a third tier singer. During their song "Wake up", Mr. De La Rocha called for the Bush Administration to be "tried, hung and shot.". That, I feel, is a clear violation of the limits of freedom of speech, and I'm going to tell you why, and why I feel all of us, even you Bush-Haters, should not tolerate it.
As I pointed out in my post on dehumanizing, there is nothing scarier then the act of reducing someone to a group and then using that dehumanization to justify violence against them. This is true no matter who you're doing this to. By reducing Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice and all the rest of the executive branch to "The Bush Administration" you have separated yourself from the reality of Bush, the father to his twins, Cheney, the father of his daughters, or Rice the daughter of her mother. It's O.K. to dislike what the Bush Administration has done, to disagree with their policies, or to even organize and fight against the policies of the Bush Administration that you disagree with. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that makes you patriotic. But to call for the death of someone because you disagree with them in a country where an avenue is available to have non-violent change is despicable.
I would also like to point out how far that could take us.
I don't really care for Bill Maher. I know he's just a comedian, but that smirky, "I'm way smarter than anyone" attitude makes me desperately want to see someone, anyone, slap that smirk off his face. Should I therefore call for people to kill him? No, I don't think I should encourage that kind of behavior. Lot's of people can get on your nerves in this life and what kind of a civil society are we running where people are attacked, even killed, just because we don't like them? It also encourages more bad behavior. If it's O.K. for me to want the President killed, why not my parents? Why not my boss? Why not anyone who pisses me off in any way? As much as President Bush is a failure in my eyes as a President, we did in fact elect him to do the job. And it's not an easy job. It's entirely possible that he's simply over his head and can't handle what we put before him, in that case, push for impeachment. If it should happen that you can't make a case against him that warrants removing him from office in the eyes of the majority of the people, that does not give you the right to be disrespectful or violent. When did we get so misguided that we started thinking that we had the right to be disrespectful, even violent towards anyone we disagree with? Is it any wonder you have kids attacking their teachers? Attacking their parents? Picking on old people? Calling women bitches and hoes?
As we look out over the landscape of the society of this country, isn't it time we started holding people responsible for encouraging people to act out as opposed to settling things civilly? Is it any wonder young kids think people deserve a beating, or to be shot, over minor disagreements? If we can't even show some respect in our disagreement with the President, how can we expect anyone to show us any, when we are far less important. I'm sure that there will be a lot of people who will try to defend Rage Against the Machine, in fact I've already seen them, but just as I would not advocate people calling for violence against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, or anyone else, I can't defend what can only be described as hate speech by a hateful, hypocritical, left-wing nut. H.C.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
| [+/-] |
THE SECOND AMENDMENT, INDIVIDUALS OR JUST MILITIAS? |
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Once, while watching a comedian on Comedy Central, (one of my favorite pastimes) I heard one of the best lines on the Second Amendment ever. The young comedian said he was a foreigner and while studying up on The Amendments to the Constitution he became confused about the first two. He asked this question of the American audience, " The First Amendment is the right to say anything you want and the Second Amendment is the right to have guns, right? Well it seems to me if you got a gun....can't you say anything you want?" All good humor has an element of truth in it, and that is a great example. I sincerely believe without the threat of revolt, freedom of speech will not exist long.
I openly admit, I'm bias on this subject. I own guns and I hunt most anything that the State of Michigan allows, I make no apologies. Twice in my life I've had to use a gun to protect myself, although I've yet to have to fire it in self defense. While growing up in a shady neighborhood I've found one thing to be utterly self-evident; criminals don't care about gun laws, plain and simple. With that out of the way, lets take a good look at the debate surrounding my second favorite Amendment.
If there is one thing in the Constitution I wish the Founding Fathers could have made clearer, it's the phrase "a well-regulated militia". That phrase has been debated endlessly. On one side are the people who believe that a well regulated militia meant a state could keep a government controlled militia such as the Nation Guard, to protect itself from excessive control by the Federal Government and to assist in emergencies. They believe that right does not extend to individuals. On the other side are the people who believe that in order to have a well regulated militia, the people themselves need to have arms to protect themselves individually. That they would rise up independent of any government intervention against either the State or Federal Government if need be.
And the argument doesn't end there. One side believes that you have the right to protect your family and belongings. The other believes the government should do that for you through police. One side believes that hunting with a gun is an American tradition and is absolutely necessary for the regulation of wildlife. The other side believes in alternative means to control wildlife populations, that frankly, I can't even name because none of them have been shown to work. (Except maybe hitting them with your car.)
When it comes to arguments about what our Founding Fathers intended, I look at what they themselves tried to do. Since The Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791, I could find no example of any of the Founding Fathers in any way trying to disarm the American people who all owned guns. They formed no force, they passed no laws, they took not one gun through the government. If their intent was for the individual to not have guns, why did they do nothing to enforce it? Honestly, it's ridiculous to assume they would want to disarm people who depended on guns for food and who had just used them to free themselves from an overbearing and controlling government that wouldn't even allow them to manufacture them for themselves. It's that simple.
Now, you could make the argument that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the future as it is today. That's at least rational. Guns come in forms that would have slaughtered Washington's armies in a day. Fully -automatic machine guns can kick out hundreds of rounds in the time it would take you to reload a muzzle loader. Frankly, I don't find it necessary for your average American to own a fully automatic weapon, an anti-aircraft gun, or an RPG. Let's keep it real here folks. I can enjoy shooting, hunting, and the safety of my own home protection without getting ridiculous. As far as rising up against my government if need be (and don't think it couldn't happen here), I think we could do it with reasonable weapons. After all, a lot of insurgencies seem to be doing a fair job with a lot less. If not, we could always buy them from Russia or China or God only knows who else.
In conclusion, let me say this. Two things that I believe will always be in America in some form are guns and abortion. The reason is simple, people equate them with freedom. The freedom to control your body or the freedom to defend yourself is really the same thing in the end, but we also have to except that both should be regulated so that we still have freedom without being ridiculous. Ten-year olds should not be getting abortions without their parents knowledge and ten-year olds should not be carrying handguns to school. I know that people on the left and right have far different ideas about where the boundaries should lie, but that's the great thing about America. We always seem to meet in the middle. I'll except some regulation as long as I always have a gun, but as far as whether the Second Amendment is for the individual or for government-controlled groups....It's as individual as my freedom. H.C.
I openly admit, I'm bias on this subject. I own guns and I hunt most anything that the State of Michigan allows, I make no apologies. Twice in my life I've had to use a gun to protect myself, although I've yet to have to fire it in self defense. While growing up in a shady neighborhood I've found one thing to be utterly self-evident; criminals don't care about gun laws, plain and simple. With that out of the way, lets take a good look at the debate surrounding my second favorite Amendment.
If there is one thing in the Constitution I wish the Founding Fathers could have made clearer, it's the phrase "a well-regulated militia". That phrase has been debated endlessly. On one side are the people who believe that a well regulated militia meant a state could keep a government controlled militia such as the Nation Guard, to protect itself from excessive control by the Federal Government and to assist in emergencies. They believe that right does not extend to individuals. On the other side are the people who believe that in order to have a well regulated militia, the people themselves need to have arms to protect themselves individually. That they would rise up independent of any government intervention against either the State or Federal Government if need be.
And the argument doesn't end there. One side believes that you have the right to protect your family and belongings. The other believes the government should do that for you through police. One side believes that hunting with a gun is an American tradition and is absolutely necessary for the regulation of wildlife. The other side believes in alternative means to control wildlife populations, that frankly, I can't even name because none of them have been shown to work. (Except maybe hitting them with your car.)
When it comes to arguments about what our Founding Fathers intended, I look at what they themselves tried to do. Since The Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791, I could find no example of any of the Founding Fathers in any way trying to disarm the American people who all owned guns. They formed no force, they passed no laws, they took not one gun through the government. If their intent was for the individual to not have guns, why did they do nothing to enforce it? Honestly, it's ridiculous to assume they would want to disarm people who depended on guns for food and who had just used them to free themselves from an overbearing and controlling government that wouldn't even allow them to manufacture them for themselves. It's that simple.
Now, you could make the argument that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the future as it is today. That's at least rational. Guns come in forms that would have slaughtered Washington's armies in a day. Fully -automatic machine guns can kick out hundreds of rounds in the time it would take you to reload a muzzle loader. Frankly, I don't find it necessary for your average American to own a fully automatic weapon, an anti-aircraft gun, or an RPG. Let's keep it real here folks. I can enjoy shooting, hunting, and the safety of my own home protection without getting ridiculous. As far as rising up against my government if need be (and don't think it couldn't happen here), I think we could do it with reasonable weapons. After all, a lot of insurgencies seem to be doing a fair job with a lot less. If not, we could always buy them from Russia or China or God only knows who else.
In conclusion, let me say this. Two things that I believe will always be in America in some form are guns and abortion. The reason is simple, people equate them with freedom. The freedom to control your body or the freedom to defend yourself is really the same thing in the end, but we also have to except that both should be regulated so that we still have freedom without being ridiculous. Ten-year olds should not be getting abortions without their parents knowledge and ten-year olds should not be carrying handguns to school. I know that people on the left and right have far different ideas about where the boundaries should lie, but that's the great thing about America. We always seem to meet in the middle. I'll except some regulation as long as I always have a gun, but as far as whether the Second Amendment is for the individual or for government-controlled groups....It's as individual as my freedom. H.C.
Friday, January 26, 2007
| [+/-] |
MYSPACE LIBERAL ADVOCATES ATTACK FREE SPEECH |
They called me an idiot, a moron and a homophobe, they dismissed my points as drivel, they tried to say I was against letting gay people have kids at all, they made statements about things I never even said, and worst of all they cut me off from responding to their comments and then banned me from their site. My horrible crime? I posted a piece called "Why I Can't Support Gay Marriage", my post right before this one on thehippieconservative.com. I knew it was coming. I was doing what I always do, trying to inject a train of thought that you may not have considered. For that I was banned from ever posting again on the Myspace Democrats.
To be fair, at first the Myspace Republicans wouldn't even let me join. I guess the word "hippie" got them a little nervous. Oddly enough, as soon as the Dems banned me the Republicans accepted me. (????) For those of you that aren't familiar with the whole Myspace world, it has a lot of groups and forums for supposedly open discussion. While the Myspace Democrats are a public group (you don't need to necessarily join to post) the Myspace Republicans is a private group (you have to request to join and be approved to post). Since I was rejected by the Republicans, (which, by the way I found very funny) and accepted by the Dems, I started posting some of my thoughts on their site. I started out posting some less contraversial pieces and things were going great. And then I decided to challenge them to open up their thinking a little by offering a debate against gay marriage. If you read the peice you'll see that all I was really arguing was that a gay marriage might not be the very best situation (I said optimum) for a child when compared to a man/women marriage. (You could even take the gay factor completely out of it.) I based it on research and made my points based on cross gender parenting, the raising of a child of the opposite gender. Since this is not a problem in a man/women marriage, I thought it was worthy of debate.
You would have thought I told the Christians that there was no Jesus. The attacks poured in. By now, most of you know me well enough to know I'm not afraid of a debate and that I promote civility in discussion. I don't think I would be understating it to say there wasn't a lot of that. Although I should point out here that it really didn't seem to be the gay people themselves that were the problem, it was those who wrap themselves in self-rightousness as a defender of their gay friends. One by one I responded to their accusations, misquotes, and misconceptions and then, suddenly, I was banned from responding. I immediately put up a post (I could still do that) and asked what it was that I had done wrong? I was civil. I didn't call people names. I didn't in the least bit promote any animosity towards gay people. What was the problem?
After about a half hour, (maybe they reviewed my comments) I was back up and responding. I stayed online for 3 hours giving my point of view as the accusations against me grew. One by one I corrected them and then, again, I was banned. Frustrated, I went to bed. In the morning, a thought for a new post came to mind on an unrelated subject. I logged in and was suprised to find out I can no longer post on the Myspace Democrats. Well, I'm mad as hell. Myspace has millions of viewers. It and Youtube make up the largest sites for posting material. If I allow this to happen, little by little we float into a world where only one view is tolerated, where open discussion is limited, and where free speech is slowly killed.
So what can we do? I'm asking all of you to take a minute and help me. Go to my post, read it and draw your own opinion. Go to the Myspace Democrats and read my comments and if you agree that I didn't deserve this, post you own Topic asking why I'm no longer allowed to post. It's a small battle, but remember freedoms never leave all at once, they fall a little at a time. Thanks in advance. H.C.
To be fair, at first the Myspace Republicans wouldn't even let me join. I guess the word "hippie" got them a little nervous. Oddly enough, as soon as the Dems banned me the Republicans accepted me. (????) For those of you that aren't familiar with the whole Myspace world, it has a lot of groups and forums for supposedly open discussion. While the Myspace Democrats are a public group (you don't need to necessarily join to post) the Myspace Republicans is a private group (you have to request to join and be approved to post). Since I was rejected by the Republicans, (which, by the way I found very funny) and accepted by the Dems, I started posting some of my thoughts on their site. I started out posting some less contraversial pieces and things were going great. And then I decided to challenge them to open up their thinking a little by offering a debate against gay marriage. If you read the peice you'll see that all I was really arguing was that a gay marriage might not be the very best situation (I said optimum) for a child when compared to a man/women marriage. (You could even take the gay factor completely out of it.) I based it on research and made my points based on cross gender parenting, the raising of a child of the opposite gender. Since this is not a problem in a man/women marriage, I thought it was worthy of debate.
You would have thought I told the Christians that there was no Jesus. The attacks poured in. By now, most of you know me well enough to know I'm not afraid of a debate and that I promote civility in discussion. I don't think I would be understating it to say there wasn't a lot of that. Although I should point out here that it really didn't seem to be the gay people themselves that were the problem, it was those who wrap themselves in self-rightousness as a defender of their gay friends. One by one I responded to their accusations, misquotes, and misconceptions and then, suddenly, I was banned from responding. I immediately put up a post (I could still do that) and asked what it was that I had done wrong? I was civil. I didn't call people names. I didn't in the least bit promote any animosity towards gay people. What was the problem?
After about a half hour, (maybe they reviewed my comments) I was back up and responding. I stayed online for 3 hours giving my point of view as the accusations against me grew. One by one I corrected them and then, again, I was banned. Frustrated, I went to bed. In the morning, a thought for a new post came to mind on an unrelated subject. I logged in and was suprised to find out I can no longer post on the Myspace Democrats. Well, I'm mad as hell. Myspace has millions of viewers. It and Youtube make up the largest sites for posting material. If I allow this to happen, little by little we float into a world where only one view is tolerated, where open discussion is limited, and where free speech is slowly killed.
So what can we do? I'm asking all of you to take a minute and help me. Go to my post, read it and draw your own opinion. Go to the Myspace Democrats and read my comments and if you agree that I didn't deserve this, post you own Topic asking why I'm no longer allowed to post. It's a small battle, but remember freedoms never leave all at once, they fall a little at a time. Thanks in advance. H.C.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
| [+/-] |
WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT "GAY MARRIAGE" |
Well, I guess the best place to start is by ridding all of you of the preconceptions you got from the opening title. I'm not a homophobe, hell, you couldn't survive a day working in my University if you were. Without outing anyone, I'll simply say I deal with gay people a lot. I find them to be as normal or not normal as most people. Some I was suprised to find out, others I was not. Basically, I find no difference in the way I feel around them from the way I feel around my straight friends. I plain old just don't care. If they hit on me it might make me feel different but for some reason (gaydar?) they seem to know I'm straight. Hell, maybe it's just that I make a damn ugly gay guy, I don't know, but like I said, I plain old just don't care. Keep it to yourself. I don't want to know your sexual exploits and that applies to everyone. Second point; I'm not religious in the standard sense. I don't subscribe to any ideology based on any religion, so spare me your Christian-bashing rants. I will say one thing though; why would you gay couples care at all what a bunch of religious people think about your relationships? They sure as hell don't care what you think of theirs. Trust me, I asked. "Marriage" is a religious rite, want to have a church that honors Gay Marriage? Start your own church with your values, and get "Married" there. Just a thought. Anyway, with that out of the way, here's the reason I can't support "Gay Marriage".
Children. That's it, plain and simple. More specifically, adoption and custody battles. You see, with everything that we do in our lives there are unintended consequences. You drive your car to work everyday and that causes Global warming. See, not what you intended, but it still happens. With Gay Marriage the unintended consequences are that children get sucked into the fray. Kids just want to be "normal". You wanted to be normal when you were young, we all did. Now I understand that life's rough, we're all going to get picked on for something at sometime in our life, but let's all at least agree that we should try to limit it for the sake of our kids. Anything that makes kids feel less "normal" around their friends I view as a negative. I know it makes them stronger, but they'll get plenty of harrassment without you helping. Now here's where it gets complicated. People can't help it if they're born gay and some of you out there were. The exact percent? Somewhere between what the far right is saying (0%) and what the far left is saying (100%). Some of you were in denial or trying desperately to fit in and be "normal" and found yourself with kids, I have no problem with you. Please do the best you can to give your kids a chance to fit in without your desire to change the world getting in his or her way. Now here's where I have a problem. Should we say that a gay couple is the same as a straight couple legally. How do we decide if a father/father couple is a better environment than a single mother for the raising of a girl?Read any far left publication and they'll have one answer, read any far right publication and they'll have another. Who should I believe? The Heritage Foundation or the Triangle Foundation? This is my dilemma. My gut instinct on this is that there are a lot of different levels and to address it properly we need to look at whatever I can find on gender influence, single parents and any other social variables that might apply, so here we go.
Once again, the advantages of working in a University setting and having a diverse stable of friends comes in handy. I went straight (pun) for two friends that I know are gay. (They've told me, no I'm not guessing.) One is in a steady relationship and has an adopted child, the other is in a relationship with no children, both are advocates of Gay Marriage and are considered by me to be good, intelligent, people all around. I asked both for their opinions and any supporting research that they could give me and I thank them for helping me. Since the preponderance of evidence that I found was agenda-driven, it was very hard for me to separate good research from bad. Pro-Gay Marriage research tended to rely on subjects that were overwhelmingly lesbian/lesbian parents since the research (I'm guessing here since I could not find any) on gay male/gay male parents must tend to be less favorable to their agendas. Since this form of research dominates the Web and is generated by Universities which favor Gay Marriage, some of my conclusions came from research that was generated to argue that single mothers were better single parents than single dads or that gender influenced the child's outcome when the custodial parent was/wasn't the same sex. This research would often conflict with other studies that supported Gay Marriage. Like I said, this is complicated.
I relied heavily on two research papers that took different sides of the issue at hand. The first one was decidedly Pro-Gay Marriage, from the American Academy of Pediatrics titled, "Technical Report: Coparent or Second Parent Adoption by Same Sex Parents" and was given to me by one of the aforementioned advocates. In the opening paragraph the Author, Ellen C. Perrin, concedes that, "The secrecy resulting from the stigma still associated with homosexualty" hampered her research. This leads one to believe that there is a stigma attached to being Gay that is accepted as a negative by even it's advocates. It's very hard to on one hand say that someone suffers prejudice in society for being Gay and then turn around and claim that it won't have a negative effect on the children. The body of her research seemed to focus primarily on Lesbians and came to the conclusion that there were no negative results of a child in a Lesbian/Lesbian household. Although I found her research in that area to be compelling, I could not help but wonder why she chose to focus on Lesbians instead of Gay Males as did every research paper I read. Is it possible that the dirty little secret in the Gay community is that Gay Male/Gay Male parenting did not fare as well in research. One has to wonder. This would be consistant with other papers I researched that were Pro-Womens rights that claimed straight men did not do as well as their straight female counterparts in raising children, particularly girls.
Which brings us to the issue of cross gender parenting. Even among straight parents it is accepted that children do slightly better in a single parent household that is of the same gender as the child. This makes sense as a boy can find himself isolated in a house with a sister and a mother, the same would be true if you turned the genders around. While it's true that a positive role model of the same gender would help the child, it's a stretch for me to assume these people exist in most relationships when everyone I talk to has a hard time finding one. There's also a level of commitment to consider. Friends come and go, that's the idea behind Marriage to begin with; to commit to one another and to the children they intend to raise. It's not the responsibility of friends to help you raise your child, nor should it be.
The second paper I found relatively reliable took the opposite position, although not "Anti Gay Marriage."It was titled "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting" by George A. Rekers Ph.D.. I found his piece to be equally bias as it focused on problems with research done by advocates of Gay parenting. That said, I found his arguments equally compelling. He raised several questions I found valid to ask. Such as; why research seems to focus on Lesbian households, how long do Gay relationships last compared to Straight relationships and how is sampling of the well-being of the children in question being done. He points out that a great of the research being generated is not being done on a random basis, rather it is being done with volunteers who most certainly would not be volunteering against their own cause.
After filtering through all this research and talking to people on both sides I can only come to one conclusion. Both sides are doing their best to discredit the other side. I could not, with any degree of certainty say, that all things being equal, all married couples should be judged the same in the eyes of the law. I found compelling evidence that there is a difference between Gay families and Straight families particularly when raising children of the opposite gender. I have serious questions about Gay Male/Gay Male parenting that I could not answer through research that dominates the Web. I would like to say however, that I believe any loving family is better than not having one. For this reason I am not against adoption or custody of children by Gay families, but I have serious concerns about how we are going to make decisions when the issue is between the many different family units we are creating. How we decide will decide the type of life these children will have. This is no time to be experimenting to further a social agenda. I have no problem with civil unions that give Gay people the same legal rights in property, medical decisions or anything else, but, until I can rest assured that children are not being used by people for selfish reasons, I can not support Gay Marriage. King Solomon is famous for his wise decisions, most notably when two women approached him both claiming to be the mother of the same child. Solomon instructed his guards to "Cut the baby in half" thus solving the problem. One of the women lept forward crying and said the other woman was the mother, to please spare the child. Soloman then gave the child to the woman who lept forward, saying she had proven she was the real mother by doing what only a mother would do. Give up what she wanted for the sake of the child's welfare. The point here is the children must come first. If they don't, you don't deserve the child. In the future, more evidence may become apparent, society may become more tolerant, but we don't know for sure what the future holds. Until that day, I'll advocate for one man/one woman, married to each other, being the optimum family for raising a child, and we can continue to argue over who comes after that. H.C.
Children. That's it, plain and simple. More specifically, adoption and custody battles. You see, with everything that we do in our lives there are unintended consequences. You drive your car to work everyday and that causes Global warming. See, not what you intended, but it still happens. With Gay Marriage the unintended consequences are that children get sucked into the fray. Kids just want to be "normal". You wanted to be normal when you were young, we all did. Now I understand that life's rough, we're all going to get picked on for something at sometime in our life, but let's all at least agree that we should try to limit it for the sake of our kids. Anything that makes kids feel less "normal" around their friends I view as a negative. I know it makes them stronger, but they'll get plenty of harrassment without you helping. Now here's where it gets complicated. People can't help it if they're born gay and some of you out there were. The exact percent? Somewhere between what the far right is saying (0%) and what the far left is saying (100%). Some of you were in denial or trying desperately to fit in and be "normal" and found yourself with kids, I have no problem with you. Please do the best you can to give your kids a chance to fit in without your desire to change the world getting in his or her way. Now here's where I have a problem. Should we say that a gay couple is the same as a straight couple legally. How do we decide if a father/father couple is a better environment than a single mother for the raising of a girl?Read any far left publication and they'll have one answer, read any far right publication and they'll have another. Who should I believe? The Heritage Foundation or the Triangle Foundation? This is my dilemma. My gut instinct on this is that there are a lot of different levels and to address it properly we need to look at whatever I can find on gender influence, single parents and any other social variables that might apply, so here we go.
Once again, the advantages of working in a University setting and having a diverse stable of friends comes in handy. I went straight (pun) for two friends that I know are gay. (They've told me, no I'm not guessing.) One is in a steady relationship and has an adopted child, the other is in a relationship with no children, both are advocates of Gay Marriage and are considered by me to be good, intelligent, people all around. I asked both for their opinions and any supporting research that they could give me and I thank them for helping me. Since the preponderance of evidence that I found was agenda-driven, it was very hard for me to separate good research from bad. Pro-Gay Marriage research tended to rely on subjects that were overwhelmingly lesbian/lesbian parents since the research (I'm guessing here since I could not find any) on gay male/gay male parents must tend to be less favorable to their agendas. Since this form of research dominates the Web and is generated by Universities which favor Gay Marriage, some of my conclusions came from research that was generated to argue that single mothers were better single parents than single dads or that gender influenced the child's outcome when the custodial parent was/wasn't the same sex. This research would often conflict with other studies that supported Gay Marriage. Like I said, this is complicated.
I relied heavily on two research papers that took different sides of the issue at hand. The first one was decidedly Pro-Gay Marriage, from the American Academy of Pediatrics titled, "Technical Report: Coparent or Second Parent Adoption by Same Sex Parents" and was given to me by one of the aforementioned advocates. In the opening paragraph the Author, Ellen C. Perrin, concedes that, "The secrecy resulting from the stigma still associated with homosexualty" hampered her research. This leads one to believe that there is a stigma attached to being Gay that is accepted as a negative by even it's advocates. It's very hard to on one hand say that someone suffers prejudice in society for being Gay and then turn around and claim that it won't have a negative effect on the children. The body of her research seemed to focus primarily on Lesbians and came to the conclusion that there were no negative results of a child in a Lesbian/Lesbian household. Although I found her research in that area to be compelling, I could not help but wonder why she chose to focus on Lesbians instead of Gay Males as did every research paper I read. Is it possible that the dirty little secret in the Gay community is that Gay Male/Gay Male parenting did not fare as well in research. One has to wonder. This would be consistant with other papers I researched that were Pro-Womens rights that claimed straight men did not do as well as their straight female counterparts in raising children, particularly girls.
Which brings us to the issue of cross gender parenting. Even among straight parents it is accepted that children do slightly better in a single parent household that is of the same gender as the child. This makes sense as a boy can find himself isolated in a house with a sister and a mother, the same would be true if you turned the genders around. While it's true that a positive role model of the same gender would help the child, it's a stretch for me to assume these people exist in most relationships when everyone I talk to has a hard time finding one. There's also a level of commitment to consider. Friends come and go, that's the idea behind Marriage to begin with; to commit to one another and to the children they intend to raise. It's not the responsibility of friends to help you raise your child, nor should it be.
The second paper I found relatively reliable took the opposite position, although not "Anti Gay Marriage."It was titled "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting" by George A. Rekers Ph.D.. I found his piece to be equally bias as it focused on problems with research done by advocates of Gay parenting. That said, I found his arguments equally compelling. He raised several questions I found valid to ask. Such as; why research seems to focus on Lesbian households, how long do Gay relationships last compared to Straight relationships and how is sampling of the well-being of the children in question being done. He points out that a great of the research being generated is not being done on a random basis, rather it is being done with volunteers who most certainly would not be volunteering against their own cause.
After filtering through all this research and talking to people on both sides I can only come to one conclusion. Both sides are doing their best to discredit the other side. I could not, with any degree of certainty say, that all things being equal, all married couples should be judged the same in the eyes of the law. I found compelling evidence that there is a difference between Gay families and Straight families particularly when raising children of the opposite gender. I have serious questions about Gay Male/Gay Male parenting that I could not answer through research that dominates the Web. I would like to say however, that I believe any loving family is better than not having one. For this reason I am not against adoption or custody of children by Gay families, but I have serious concerns about how we are going to make decisions when the issue is between the many different family units we are creating. How we decide will decide the type of life these children will have. This is no time to be experimenting to further a social agenda. I have no problem with civil unions that give Gay people the same legal rights in property, medical decisions or anything else, but, until I can rest assured that children are not being used by people for selfish reasons, I can not support Gay Marriage. King Solomon is famous for his wise decisions, most notably when two women approached him both claiming to be the mother of the same child. Solomon instructed his guards to "Cut the baby in half" thus solving the problem. One of the women lept forward crying and said the other woman was the mother, to please spare the child. Soloman then gave the child to the woman who lept forward, saying she had proven she was the real mother by doing what only a mother would do. Give up what she wanted for the sake of the child's welfare. The point here is the children must come first. If they don't, you don't deserve the child. In the future, more evidence may become apparent, society may become more tolerant, but we don't know for sure what the future holds. Until that day, I'll advocate for one man/one woman, married to each other, being the optimum family for raising a child, and we can continue to argue over who comes after that. H.C.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
| [+/-] |
|
IS IT TIME TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
Posted in political on July 19th, 2006
This November, Michigan voters will be faced with a decision, whether of not to pass the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that would effectively end affirmative action in government and Universities. This is not actually a new idea; California and Washington have already passed similar initiatives with mixed results, (depending on who you talk to.) Although I have always supported affirmative action, recent events have caused me to have mixed emotions on this issue.
In the early 1980’s I wrote an opinion column for a local newspaper on affirmative action. In it, I defended the use of affirmative action as a way of balancing out what I saw, and to some degree, still see, as the advantage of being white. I wrote then and still believe now, that people left on their own will hire people who most closely resemble themselves. At the time, black people and poor people were so synonymous that separating them didn’t make much sense. Black people were barely getting on their feet socially speaking. They hardly held any high positions in government and college campuses were damn near void of a black face. They didn’t own enough businesses to matter at all in terms of employment and you would have been hard pressed to find one black millionaire much less a billionaire. Times truly have changed.
We now have a society in America where black people are seeing the fruits of what affirmative action has brought them. Thanks to affirmative action, our colleges are kicking out black graduates in numbers never seen before in our history. In the halls of the University where I work, every year I see more and more minorities of every color. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau more blacks than whites (27% vs. 26.6%) have some college education. America is truly becoming a diverse country. The end result of producing all these educated black people is more black businesses, more black millionaires and billionaires, and more black people in positions of power. In short, affirmative action has been a saving grace for black people. It’s no wonder they support it so passionately.
The results for other minorities through affirmative action is a little more questionable. The reason is that, for the most part, affirmative action offices in your University, or government, are run almost exclusively by blacks, for blacks. Blacks, having been the leaders in almost every indicator of poverty for so long, were of course, given the most attention by affirmative action. As this has slowly changed, (Hispanics lead blacks in this country in almost every poverty indicator now), affirmative action has been slow to change with it. Women have seen big advances in the years since affirmative action took place, but since they entered the workplace for reasons that had little to do with affirmative action and more to do with women’s rights groups, I feel that it’s a little like the rooster taking credit for the dawn for affirmative action to point at women as a success on their part. In fact, as the Supreme Court case Gratz vs. University of Michigan shows us, affirmative action as used by our Universities is perfectly willing to violate white women’s civil rights to advance other minorities agendas. (The University of Michigan was found to be violating the 14th Amendment rights of white women (and white men) by using a unconstitutional point system for their undergrad admissions. something they’ve never seen a reason to apologize for.) It could be argued therefore, that affirmative action, in its effort to balance the scales, is itself engaging in discrimination.
Affirmative action proponents are gearing up and forming groups throughout Michigan to battle the MCRI. The most vocal of these groups is BAMN, short for “By Any Means Necessary.” Now, for me, the name alone is reason enough to not support them. One has to wonder if they truly mean “Any Means.” Do they honestly condone the use of terrorism? Intimidation? Threats? Violence? It’s hard to say, but so far their actions have shown me that they will stop at nothing to support their agenda. Here’s a list of actions they deem justifiable; Disrupting a Dec. 2005 Board of Canvassers meeting by busing in High School kids and then yelling physical threats at the boards members, attempting to solicit Democrat Board of Canvas members to break the law and defy a judge’s order to put MCRI on the Nov. ballot and finally, accusing MRCI supporters of misrepresenting their cause when collecting signatures. Apparently BAMN thinks that black people are not smart enough to know what they are signing, or are too dumb to even check. It should be noted here that MCRI supporters turned in 508,000 signatures even though they only needed 317,757. To believe BAMN, you would have to believe nearly 2/5 of the people who signed didn’t know what they were signing.
At this point the issue becomes, should a group be able to block a vote by the people of Michigan simply because they disagree with the other side? I say no. Is this the kind of process you would want blocking your issue? The University of Michigan along with the city of Ann Arbor and politicians on both sides of the aisle seem afraid to label this for what it clearly is, an attempt to thwart the will of the people. For this reason I am leaning toward supporting the MCRI stance on university affirmative action.
One thing that is important to know about affirmative action at the University level, is that we will find a way to recruit minorities anyway. Universities are very left-leaning. Since the issue has come up, my university is already making plans to circumvent any possible new rules. Affirmative Action offices are already renaming themselves to something that sounds more benign, even though all the same people work in the office. Instead of using race, we will simply target school districts that are mostly black or areas that are poor. Affirmative action will live on, just in a slightly different form. No longer will the poor white kid who lives in the ghetto along with his black and Hispanic counterparts be refused the help he needs, nor will the wealthy son of a black or Hispanic businessman get help he neither needs nor deserves. As far as women in universities are concerned, they now constitute the majority of students anyway, so it seems absurd that we should be recruiting any majority.
The one part of the MCRI that I don’t agree with is the ban on using affirmative action in government hiring. Unfortunately, blacks and Hispanics are still having a hard time getting their unemployment rates down closer to where whites are. There are a lot of reasons for this and regrettably, racism is still one of them. Government jobs account for a large portion of the decent jobs that blacks in particular get. I’m not convinced that we’ve leveled the playing field just yet, so maybe we (whites) should consider that, while it’s still wrong to tell someone that they can’t have a job because they’re white, it may be the only way to assure blacks some good jobs.
I’m still leaving my mind open enough to allow that I could be won over to either side, but if the leftists continue to try to squelch open and free debate they will lose my vote. In a recent Ann Arbor pre-election position forum, 18 Democrats running for mayor, city council, and Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners couldn’t find one issue they disagreed on, including this one. Apparently they all support diversity of color, gender, and sexual orientation, but like the group BAMN, don’t support diversity of thought. H.C.
Posted in political on July 19th, 2006
This November, Michigan voters will be faced with a decision, whether of not to pass the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that would effectively end affirmative action in government and Universities. This is not actually a new idea; California and Washington have already passed similar initiatives with mixed results, (depending on who you talk to.) Although I have always supported affirmative action, recent events have caused me to have mixed emotions on this issue.
In the early 1980’s I wrote an opinion column for a local newspaper on affirmative action. In it, I defended the use of affirmative action as a way of balancing out what I saw, and to some degree, still see, as the advantage of being white. I wrote then and still believe now, that people left on their own will hire people who most closely resemble themselves. At the time, black people and poor people were so synonymous that separating them didn’t make much sense. Black people were barely getting on their feet socially speaking. They hardly held any high positions in government and college campuses were damn near void of a black face. They didn’t own enough businesses to matter at all in terms of employment and you would have been hard pressed to find one black millionaire much less a billionaire. Times truly have changed.
We now have a society in America where black people are seeing the fruits of what affirmative action has brought them. Thanks to affirmative action, our colleges are kicking out black graduates in numbers never seen before in our history. In the halls of the University where I work, every year I see more and more minorities of every color. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau more blacks than whites (27% vs. 26.6%) have some college education. America is truly becoming a diverse country. The end result of producing all these educated black people is more black businesses, more black millionaires and billionaires, and more black people in positions of power. In short, affirmative action has been a saving grace for black people. It’s no wonder they support it so passionately.
The results for other minorities through affirmative action is a little more questionable. The reason is that, for the most part, affirmative action offices in your University, or government, are run almost exclusively by blacks, for blacks. Blacks, having been the leaders in almost every indicator of poverty for so long, were of course, given the most attention by affirmative action. As this has slowly changed, (Hispanics lead blacks in this country in almost every poverty indicator now), affirmative action has been slow to change with it. Women have seen big advances in the years since affirmative action took place, but since they entered the workplace for reasons that had little to do with affirmative action and more to do with women’s rights groups, I feel that it’s a little like the rooster taking credit for the dawn for affirmative action to point at women as a success on their part. In fact, as the Supreme Court case Gratz vs. University of Michigan shows us, affirmative action as used by our Universities is perfectly willing to violate white women’s civil rights to advance other minorities agendas. (The University of Michigan was found to be violating the 14th Amendment rights of white women (and white men) by using a unconstitutional point system for their undergrad admissions. something they’ve never seen a reason to apologize for.) It could be argued therefore, that affirmative action, in its effort to balance the scales, is itself engaging in discrimination.
Affirmative action proponents are gearing up and forming groups throughout Michigan to battle the MCRI. The most vocal of these groups is BAMN, short for “By Any Means Necessary.” Now, for me, the name alone is reason enough to not support them. One has to wonder if they truly mean “Any Means.” Do they honestly condone the use of terrorism? Intimidation? Threats? Violence? It’s hard to say, but so far their actions have shown me that they will stop at nothing to support their agenda. Here’s a list of actions they deem justifiable; Disrupting a Dec. 2005 Board of Canvassers meeting by busing in High School kids and then yelling physical threats at the boards members, attempting to solicit Democrat Board of Canvas members to break the law and defy a judge’s order to put MCRI on the Nov. ballot and finally, accusing MRCI supporters of misrepresenting their cause when collecting signatures. Apparently BAMN thinks that black people are not smart enough to know what they are signing, or are too dumb to even check. It should be noted here that MCRI supporters turned in 508,000 signatures even though they only needed 317,757. To believe BAMN, you would have to believe nearly 2/5 of the people who signed didn’t know what they were signing.
At this point the issue becomes, should a group be able to block a vote by the people of Michigan simply because they disagree with the other side? I say no. Is this the kind of process you would want blocking your issue? The University of Michigan along with the city of Ann Arbor and politicians on both sides of the aisle seem afraid to label this for what it clearly is, an attempt to thwart the will of the people. For this reason I am leaning toward supporting the MCRI stance on university affirmative action.
One thing that is important to know about affirmative action at the University level, is that we will find a way to recruit minorities anyway. Universities are very left-leaning. Since the issue has come up, my university is already making plans to circumvent any possible new rules. Affirmative Action offices are already renaming themselves to something that sounds more benign, even though all the same people work in the office. Instead of using race, we will simply target school districts that are mostly black or areas that are poor. Affirmative action will live on, just in a slightly different form. No longer will the poor white kid who lives in the ghetto along with his black and Hispanic counterparts be refused the help he needs, nor will the wealthy son of a black or Hispanic businessman get help he neither needs nor deserves. As far as women in universities are concerned, they now constitute the majority of students anyway, so it seems absurd that we should be recruiting any majority.
The one part of the MCRI that I don’t agree with is the ban on using affirmative action in government hiring. Unfortunately, blacks and Hispanics are still having a hard time getting their unemployment rates down closer to where whites are. There are a lot of reasons for this and regrettably, racism is still one of them. Government jobs account for a large portion of the decent jobs that blacks in particular get. I’m not convinced that we’ve leveled the playing field just yet, so maybe we (whites) should consider that, while it’s still wrong to tell someone that they can’t have a job because they’re white, it may be the only way to assure blacks some good jobs.
I’m still leaving my mind open enough to allow that I could be won over to either side, but if the leftists continue to try to squelch open and free debate they will lose my vote. In a recent Ann Arbor pre-election position forum, 18 Democrats running for mayor, city council, and Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners couldn’t find one issue they disagreed on, including this one. Apparently they all support diversity of color, gender, and sexual orientation, but like the group BAMN, don’t support diversity of thought. H.C.
Friday, December 8, 2006
| [+/-] |
|
FREEDOM OF SPEECH DIES AT HARVARD
Posted in political on March 14th, 2006
The First Amendment to the Constitution is probably the best know of all the twenty-seven Amendments, it may also be the most important. Sitting at the top of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 amendments) it stands majestic in its simplicity. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In Constitutional law circles it is broken down into clauses, such as; the establishment clause, the exercise clause, the freedom of speech clause, etc.. We’ll be dealing with the freedom of speech clause today, and to further simplify, we’ll leave the arts out of it, as that’s a whole column in itself. Freedom of Speech is vital to most everything we consider American, without it, I could not write these columns without fear of reprisal. It’s held dear and close by the press, media, bloggers, war protesters, war supporters, and anyone else who has an issue they feel at the very, very, least should be heard. Free dialog is something we should never fear. Sound ideas will support themselves and bad ideas will show themselves. Suppressing someone else’s right to a different opinion is to show your own opinion cannot stand the light of debate. No matter how much you disagree, always and I mean always, allow people to express any opinion short of calling for direct threat or physical harm. You’ll notice here that I said “physical” harm. Hyper extending this clause to include feelings will only erode your rights. It hurts my feelings whenever one of you disagrees with me, but it shouldn’t affect your right to disagree, and as far as hateful words, they only work to make the user seem ignorant anyway, and I’m all for letting people show their inability to prove a point without them. Name calling is the last resort of someone with no valid argument.
Unfortunately, this is not an idea supported by our universities. While clinging dearly to their own right to speak freely, they have decided to limit free speech to only statements that do not hurt anyone’s feelings. The process they use to determine what words should be excluded is to form a committee of advocates, (only the ones they determine are justified) and create polices that satisfy them. Imagine the power you would have over someone if you could limit their statements in any argument. Husband, “I’d like to discuss the division of chores around here. Wife,”O.K. but your limited to only the ones I want to talk about, the rest hurt my feelings.” How could you talk honestly? All the power is in the wife’s hands. This is the game they play, by excluding even the suggestion of something they disagree with; there is no chance of them losing the argument.
This applies to almost ever issue on campus, suggest anything opposite of what they advocate and risk being called sexist, bigoted, racist, or worse. Your opinions won’t be heard in classrooms, printed in newspapers, allowed in discussions or even considered by policy makers. It’s important to note here that not all professors or administrators agree with what goes on, they’re just too afraid of losing their job or being ostracized to speak up. Fear of losing a discussion has turned these advocates into the greatest threat to free speech we have today. Don’t be fooled by their support for fellow advocates, or the arts, the only speech they will allow is what fits their agenda.
What is it they fear so much? Are their ideas so indefensible that an opposite opinion must not be heard? Is the proof in panel discussions tilted heavily in their favor?
Well look no further then the high profile case of Harvard President Larry Summers for proof of what these people will do to silence opposing views, or even the suggestion of one.
Larry Summers, became Harvard’s 27th president on July 1, 2001. He has a Bachelor’s degree from M.I.T. and a PHD in economics, but was probably best know as the past Secretary of Treasury for President Clinton, not exactly a conservative resume’. Dr. Summers got off to a bad start when he had the nerve to question Cornell West about his failure to produce anything beyond a rap CD in the past twenty years. Cornell West is a fairly well know black activist who manages to drag home $600,000 a year while teaching one or two classes a semester at Harvard. He spends most of his time on talk shows or giving speeches. The very idea of questioning one of the lefts icons put Dr. Summers in bad graces with them.
It was not, however, that move that got a bull’s-eye painted on Dr. Summers, it was four years later during a informal meeting to discuss the lack of women in math and science class that proved to be his undoing. After a presentation by the faculty supporting the idea that the underlining reason for this shortage was discrimination and sexism, Larry Summers had the nerve to suggest that other factors ‘may’ have contributed to the end result. The full transcript of Dr. Summers statements can be found at; www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html To summarize, he simply asked if it was possible that “innate” differences between men and women might be the reason for the shortage. He went on to point out that very few women who had achieved high ranking status in these fields had children or were married, therefore, he theorized, it may be that those feilds have too high a level of commitment for women who are seeking both family and career. He went on to point out that the top 10% of high school students in science and math was dominated by males, in some studies as high as 80%, and perhaps that explained the difference in enrollment.
This inflamed the female faculty who would accept no explanation other than prejudice. One biologist, Nancy Hopkins, over dramatized that she was so shocked to hear another thesis that she had to walk out, explaining, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up” had she not left. Several other faculty members stormed off in disgust with her. Remember all Dr. Summers did was to suggest that there may be other possibilities. Advocate faculty are so entrenched in the idea that everything is based in bias and prejudice that even the suggestion of another answer is, in and of itself, prejudice.
The faculty of Arts and Sciences then began a campaign against Dr. Summers, obstructing every function and objective he was involved in. To see how this is done, just observe any conservative speaker on your local campus. Advocates flood the audience, yelling, disrupting, rudely screaming comments, and not allowing their point of view to even be heard.
This friends, is not freedom of speech. You have the right to protest, but not to obstruct the other position from being heard. Once again, their goal is for their argument to be the only one considered. Under continuing attack, Larry Summers finally resigned, sighting pressure from faculty had made it “infeasible” to lead. It’s interesting to note here that a poll by the Crimson Press at Harvard, right before he resigned, showed Dr. Summers was supported by 2/3 of the students and the majority of the faculty.
Is this to be the future of our Universities? Are we to be so cow towed by advocate faculty that no one dare even question their statements? Where is the free speech in all this? Isn’t this really indoctrination into one point of view?
In conclusion, I would suggest to any parent of a University student to go see what your money has bought you. Go to a few of these functions and note how dialog from opposing views is silenced. See how panels are filled with people from one side with maybe one representative of the opposing side, who is shouted down by student groups. Watch as their opinions stand unheard, and witness what can only be described as the death of free speech on campus. H.C.
Posted in political on March 14th, 2006
The First Amendment to the Constitution is probably the best know of all the twenty-seven Amendments, it may also be the most important. Sitting at the top of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 amendments) it stands majestic in its simplicity. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In Constitutional law circles it is broken down into clauses, such as; the establishment clause, the exercise clause, the freedom of speech clause, etc.. We’ll be dealing with the freedom of speech clause today, and to further simplify, we’ll leave the arts out of it, as that’s a whole column in itself. Freedom of Speech is vital to most everything we consider American, without it, I could not write these columns without fear of reprisal. It’s held dear and close by the press, media, bloggers, war protesters, war supporters, and anyone else who has an issue they feel at the very, very, least should be heard. Free dialog is something we should never fear. Sound ideas will support themselves and bad ideas will show themselves. Suppressing someone else’s right to a different opinion is to show your own opinion cannot stand the light of debate. No matter how much you disagree, always and I mean always, allow people to express any opinion short of calling for direct threat or physical harm. You’ll notice here that I said “physical” harm. Hyper extending this clause to include feelings will only erode your rights. It hurts my feelings whenever one of you disagrees with me, but it shouldn’t affect your right to disagree, and as far as hateful words, they only work to make the user seem ignorant anyway, and I’m all for letting people show their inability to prove a point without them. Name calling is the last resort of someone with no valid argument.
Unfortunately, this is not an idea supported by our universities. While clinging dearly to their own right to speak freely, they have decided to limit free speech to only statements that do not hurt anyone’s feelings. The process they use to determine what words should be excluded is to form a committee of advocates, (only the ones they determine are justified) and create polices that satisfy them. Imagine the power you would have over someone if you could limit their statements in any argument. Husband, “I’d like to discuss the division of chores around here. Wife,”O.K. but your limited to only the ones I want to talk about, the rest hurt my feelings.” How could you talk honestly? All the power is in the wife’s hands. This is the game they play, by excluding even the suggestion of something they disagree with; there is no chance of them losing the argument.
This applies to almost ever issue on campus, suggest anything opposite of what they advocate and risk being called sexist, bigoted, racist, or worse. Your opinions won’t be heard in classrooms, printed in newspapers, allowed in discussions or even considered by policy makers. It’s important to note here that not all professors or administrators agree with what goes on, they’re just too afraid of losing their job or being ostracized to speak up. Fear of losing a discussion has turned these advocates into the greatest threat to free speech we have today. Don’t be fooled by their support for fellow advocates, or the arts, the only speech they will allow is what fits their agenda.
What is it they fear so much? Are their ideas so indefensible that an opposite opinion must not be heard? Is the proof in panel discussions tilted heavily in their favor?
Well look no further then the high profile case of Harvard President Larry Summers for proof of what these people will do to silence opposing views, or even the suggestion of one.
Larry Summers, became Harvard’s 27th president on July 1, 2001. He has a Bachelor’s degree from M.I.T. and a PHD in economics, but was probably best know as the past Secretary of Treasury for President Clinton, not exactly a conservative resume’. Dr. Summers got off to a bad start when he had the nerve to question Cornell West about his failure to produce anything beyond a rap CD in the past twenty years. Cornell West is a fairly well know black activist who manages to drag home $600,000 a year while teaching one or two classes a semester at Harvard. He spends most of his time on talk shows or giving speeches. The very idea of questioning one of the lefts icons put Dr. Summers in bad graces with them.
It was not, however, that move that got a bull’s-eye painted on Dr. Summers, it was four years later during a informal meeting to discuss the lack of women in math and science class that proved to be his undoing. After a presentation by the faculty supporting the idea that the underlining reason for this shortage was discrimination and sexism, Larry Summers had the nerve to suggest that other factors ‘may’ have contributed to the end result. The full transcript of Dr. Summers statements can be found at; www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html To summarize, he simply asked if it was possible that “innate” differences between men and women might be the reason for the shortage. He went on to point out that very few women who had achieved high ranking status in these fields had children or were married, therefore, he theorized, it may be that those feilds have too high a level of commitment for women who are seeking both family and career. He went on to point out that the top 10% of high school students in science and math was dominated by males, in some studies as high as 80%, and perhaps that explained the difference in enrollment.
This inflamed the female faculty who would accept no explanation other than prejudice. One biologist, Nancy Hopkins, over dramatized that she was so shocked to hear another thesis that she had to walk out, explaining, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up” had she not left. Several other faculty members stormed off in disgust with her. Remember all Dr. Summers did was to suggest that there may be other possibilities. Advocate faculty are so entrenched in the idea that everything is based in bias and prejudice that even the suggestion of another answer is, in and of itself, prejudice.
The faculty of Arts and Sciences then began a campaign against Dr. Summers, obstructing every function and objective he was involved in. To see how this is done, just observe any conservative speaker on your local campus. Advocates flood the audience, yelling, disrupting, rudely screaming comments, and not allowing their point of view to even be heard.
This friends, is not freedom of speech. You have the right to protest, but not to obstruct the other position from being heard. Once again, their goal is for their argument to be the only one considered. Under continuing attack, Larry Summers finally resigned, sighting pressure from faculty had made it “infeasible” to lead. It’s interesting to note here that a poll by the Crimson Press at Harvard, right before he resigned, showed Dr. Summers was supported by 2/3 of the students and the majority of the faculty.
Is this to be the future of our Universities? Are we to be so cow towed by advocate faculty that no one dare even question their statements? Where is the free speech in all this? Isn’t this really indoctrination into one point of view?
In conclusion, I would suggest to any parent of a University student to go see what your money has bought you. Go to a few of these functions and note how dialog from opposing views is silenced. See how panels are filled with people from one side with maybe one representative of the opposing side, who is shouted down by student groups. Watch as their opinions stand unheard, and witness what can only be described as the death of free speech on campus. H.C.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
| [+/-] |
|
FREEDOM VS. SECURITY
Posted in political on February 14th, 2006
The morning of August 7, 2008 was like any other morning. People plodded to the daily grind of their jobs, radios blared out the usual nonsense mixed with news and weather. It was 10:00 A.M. E.S.T. on a Monday that seemed like any other Monday, no hint of trouble was to be found anywhere in the flowing city life of the good old U.S.A. Children played and dogs barked, but this was not to be an ordinary day.
The first hint of trouble was a short news bulletin; a bomb had gone off in Washington D.C. no details yet, no big deal. A short time later conflicting reports of a mushroom cloud started coming in, and that sick feeling that we all felt on September 11 started rising up in our stomach once again. Then the chilling questions started. Congress was in session, who all was there? The news reports are now pouring in, more questions erupt. Where is the President? The Vice President? Fox and CNN are both running film of the mushroom cloud and unbelievable panic and carnage. People are running over one another in an effort to escape the radiation, all the freeways are packed. We turn our attention to the Stock Market, which has now closed after a near immediate drop of 1,000 points. Fears of a collapse of U.S. treasury bonds has sent shock waves through the market. Overseas markets are reading the U.S. dollar at an all time low. The domino effect of dollar values lowering bond values and stock values has left the world in the very real fear that the U.S. dollar may completely collapse. Every nation in the world begins dumping U.S. bonds and dollars for something more stable, if stability is not brought soon the U.S. dollar will soon be worthless. A previously unknown to the public General, backed by the remaining U.S. Representatives tries desperately to convince us that all is under control, that plans for this have been made, but panic is now spreading, for no one knows how this really ends.
Sound frightening? It should. It can happen as easily as a well funded group of terrorists renting a house close to the White House and building a nuclear weapon in the basement. If you don’t believe it can happen, simply look up the “Firedragon Incident” on your computer. It takes some effort but I checked out a lot of reliable sources and I can assure you it did happen. A great piece you can refer to for more info is fellow blogger “The Corpuscle” at www.thecorpuscle.com/2004/11/here_there_be_d.html . It was an incident that was thought to have happened in New York. For one day our government shook with fear, so convinced that a nuclear bomb could be smuggled into the U.S. and ignited in New York they were already blaming each other. Scared yet? You should be.
Fear mongering H.C.? Yep. Scare tactics? You Bet. But before we can discuss this sensibly you all need to know what’s at stake. One nuclear weapon goes off in Washington D.C. while congress is in session, with the President in audience, or nearby, and life as you know it could change dramatically. Just look at what happened to Russia or Yugoslavia when their government fell. Within weeks people were fighting over food. This shit’s not a joke.
Now, what do we need to do to make sure this never happens? Give up all our rights? Live in fear? Put all our trust in G.W. not to abuse the power? No, but we do need to start having some heavy discussion on how we’re going to fight this thing. Ben Franklin (my personal hero) has a great quote on this matter; “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (by the way protesters, please write it down so I don’t have to suffer your misquotes). Now I love Ben, but I doubt even he could have envisioned the threats we have today. President Bush has authorized and defended a program through the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) to spy on, I believe, anyone they feel necessary. I’m not a big fan of a Orwellian future, or the notion that if I’m not doing anything wrong I shouldn’t care. I’m not doing anything wrong when I take a shower but I don’t like the Idea of the government watching me. I really don’t believe giving up all your rights is going to make you safe, even people in prison, where you have almost no rights, get hurt and killed. However, there is logic in the idea that rights can be suspended in certain areas. In example; my right to bear arms being suspended while I’m in prison, or on a plane. Profiling has debatable results, but it still makes sense to use it to keep an eye on people who are more likely than others to commit a crime. If a guy who looks a lot like me and has a similar car has been breaking into houses in my neighborhood, and I get pulled over late at night and questioned, is that a violation of my rights? Maybe, but I should understand that facts, such as my description and car have led to the incident, not the officers prejudices. So it should be when you’re in an area that has the possibility of terrorist attack such as airports. If you fit the general profile of a terrorist and are searched, you should understand that is for all our safety, and not prejudice. Law enforcement needs to focus on likely suspects to do their job well.
Still, we do need to protect people’s rights. There should be safeguards such as oversight and sunset provisions (expiration date) attached to any legislation that increases government intrusion into our lives. That way, we have a chance to review it’s success and the way it’s being implemented before we renew it. That helps keep the power in the hands of the people, the way it should be. Government agencies are less likely to abuse a tool they’ve been given if there remains a threat of them losing it.
If it seems I’ve been a little back and forth on this issue, it’s because I am. The hippie side of me screams, “NO,NO, I am not giving up any rights , not for one minute!” but the conservative side of me knows that I may have to. Make your own decision on what’s the middle ground for you. The main message I have for you today is “beware”. Beware of giving away your rights, but also beware of the consequences if we’re not vigilant about protecting ourselves. This is a great example of the right thing being in the middle. H.C.
Posted in political on February 14th, 2006
The morning of August 7, 2008 was like any other morning. People plodded to the daily grind of their jobs, radios blared out the usual nonsense mixed with news and weather. It was 10:00 A.M. E.S.T. on a Monday that seemed like any other Monday, no hint of trouble was to be found anywhere in the flowing city life of the good old U.S.A. Children played and dogs barked, but this was not to be an ordinary day.
The first hint of trouble was a short news bulletin; a bomb had gone off in Washington D.C. no details yet, no big deal. A short time later conflicting reports of a mushroom cloud started coming in, and that sick feeling that we all felt on September 11 started rising up in our stomach once again. Then the chilling questions started. Congress was in session, who all was there? The news reports are now pouring in, more questions erupt. Where is the President? The Vice President? Fox and CNN are both running film of the mushroom cloud and unbelievable panic and carnage. People are running over one another in an effort to escape the radiation, all the freeways are packed. We turn our attention to the Stock Market, which has now closed after a near immediate drop of 1,000 points. Fears of a collapse of U.S. treasury bonds has sent shock waves through the market. Overseas markets are reading the U.S. dollar at an all time low. The domino effect of dollar values lowering bond values and stock values has left the world in the very real fear that the U.S. dollar may completely collapse. Every nation in the world begins dumping U.S. bonds and dollars for something more stable, if stability is not brought soon the U.S. dollar will soon be worthless. A previously unknown to the public General, backed by the remaining U.S. Representatives tries desperately to convince us that all is under control, that plans for this have been made, but panic is now spreading, for no one knows how this really ends.
Sound frightening? It should. It can happen as easily as a well funded group of terrorists renting a house close to the White House and building a nuclear weapon in the basement. If you don’t believe it can happen, simply look up the “Firedragon Incident” on your computer. It takes some effort but I checked out a lot of reliable sources and I can assure you it did happen. A great piece you can refer to for more info is fellow blogger “The Corpuscle” at www.thecorpuscle.com/2004/11/here_there_be_d.html . It was an incident that was thought to have happened in New York. For one day our government shook with fear, so convinced that a nuclear bomb could be smuggled into the U.S. and ignited in New York they were already blaming each other. Scared yet? You should be.
Fear mongering H.C.? Yep. Scare tactics? You Bet. But before we can discuss this sensibly you all need to know what’s at stake. One nuclear weapon goes off in Washington D.C. while congress is in session, with the President in audience, or nearby, and life as you know it could change dramatically. Just look at what happened to Russia or Yugoslavia when their government fell. Within weeks people were fighting over food. This shit’s not a joke.
Now, what do we need to do to make sure this never happens? Give up all our rights? Live in fear? Put all our trust in G.W. not to abuse the power? No, but we do need to start having some heavy discussion on how we’re going to fight this thing. Ben Franklin (my personal hero) has a great quote on this matter; “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (by the way protesters, please write it down so I don’t have to suffer your misquotes). Now I love Ben, but I doubt even he could have envisioned the threats we have today. President Bush has authorized and defended a program through the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) to spy on, I believe, anyone they feel necessary. I’m not a big fan of a Orwellian future, or the notion that if I’m not doing anything wrong I shouldn’t care. I’m not doing anything wrong when I take a shower but I don’t like the Idea of the government watching me. I really don’t believe giving up all your rights is going to make you safe, even people in prison, where you have almost no rights, get hurt and killed. However, there is logic in the idea that rights can be suspended in certain areas. In example; my right to bear arms being suspended while I’m in prison, or on a plane. Profiling has debatable results, but it still makes sense to use it to keep an eye on people who are more likely than others to commit a crime. If a guy who looks a lot like me and has a similar car has been breaking into houses in my neighborhood, and I get pulled over late at night and questioned, is that a violation of my rights? Maybe, but I should understand that facts, such as my description and car have led to the incident, not the officers prejudices. So it should be when you’re in an area that has the possibility of terrorist attack such as airports. If you fit the general profile of a terrorist and are searched, you should understand that is for all our safety, and not prejudice. Law enforcement needs to focus on likely suspects to do their job well.
Still, we do need to protect people’s rights. There should be safeguards such as oversight and sunset provisions (expiration date) attached to any legislation that increases government intrusion into our lives. That way, we have a chance to review it’s success and the way it’s being implemented before we renew it. That helps keep the power in the hands of the people, the way it should be. Government agencies are less likely to abuse a tool they’ve been given if there remains a threat of them losing it.
If it seems I’ve been a little back and forth on this issue, it’s because I am. The hippie side of me screams, “NO,NO, I am not giving up any rights , not for one minute!” but the conservative side of me knows that I may have to. Make your own decision on what’s the middle ground for you. The main message I have for you today is “beware”. Beware of giving away your rights, but also beware of the consequences if we’re not vigilant about protecting ourselves. This is a great example of the right thing being in the middle. H.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
