cavilling_elite's Blog

To Congress: A plea for Health Care

2010-02-06T01:49:38Z

"Socialized medicine" is a demonetized term made for your two minute hate. Its a term that quakes you at your core, its propaganda. The issue isn't regarding you or me, the insured. Its bigger than that, its for quality of life.

Its for the ~30 million uninsured Americans... NO just so you don't say "yeah right, including illegals"... for the one uninsured American that I met personally because she was in an accident with me, and I had to go through insurance company court with her... For HER, who is in debt because of a work related back injury, but only works part time and has no insurance. When her back acts up she has to take valuable time from emergency room doctors, paying premium for shots to relax her back muscles, because she can't make a real appointment. For HER who has lost time and wages because of her back injuries and the inability to afford the shot that relaxes her back so she can work. And the worse part is, she is a registered bed side nurse who goes to people's houses and cleans them and feeds them.

So no, I don't think quality of life will suffer under another plan, not your plan or my plan, but a plan for those who can't get on your or my plan. The plan for people that Cobra runs out on, the plan for people having to wait 30 weeks to find a job and their kids get sick, the plan for people who work two part time jobs to support their family but Walmart doesn't give insurance, the plan for people who own small businesses and can't afford to also pay for their employee's health insurance.

Those are the people I want health care for. Its a plan for those the insurance cartels won't allow in. Its a plan for the ones the Pharmaceutical companies make it unaffordable to survive. For Americans who need it.

Respectfully,
Phoenix Party
contact@phoenixparty.org

The Phoenix Party: A new kind of politics.

2010-01-29T20:24:26Z

First Open Letter to President Obama

New Coined Term: News Vigilantes.

2010-01-26T22:02:01Z

With the invention of the internet and its current state of information overload there exists a new trend that I think started today. The repeat occurrence of citizens taking extreme measures to prove their point and present it as news. It began with O'Keefe's ACORN story, where he was able to get some poor employee to agree to the demands of a comical pimp and prostitute to help them file their taxes.

Now, we find O'Keefe and 3 others allegedly caught trying to tap Senator Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) phoneline. In a plot that almost seems like it is out of Ocean's 11, O'Keefe and others dressed as telephone technicians and entered a federal building.

These "news" vigilantes, or citizens taking "getting the scoop" into their own hands by any means necessary, is a dangerous trend if this manifests itself. Instead of finding information that can be considered "truth" these kinds of people will start with a "truth" (i.e. September 11th conspiracy, Birther movement, Man on the moon, etc.) and work backwards to find supporting evidence.

This has been popular on television for quite some time, the newest and most noteworthy is Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" on TruTV. Must be true right? Except Mr. Ventura uses classic manipulation and starts with an idea. Then only interviews supporting people showing the consensus. One such example can be seen on his "Global Warming" episode, where he even managed to find someone so important that they feared for their life if the truth came out.

But now, it doesn't take a known name or budget to get your version of the truth across. The internet, and now social media, has created an interconnectedness that can wave across the world quickly and efficiently. Not unlike the spread of viruses in a population.

Using emotions and other propaganda mechanisms the public opinion (or at least partial opinion) has been set. By the time the people who are actually involved in the process find out it is too late. The news organizations are fighting in keeping their news relevant in this new age of enlightenment. It started with newspapers having yesterday's news, the internet site having last hours news, the blogs having first hand news, and now social media allows everyone to know and form their opinion before all the facts are even in.

Even worse is when the vigilantes' conclusions go uncontested either because of the lack of a real story or the time it would take to actually persuade the group to believe otherwise. The trust has been broken, the memory is set.

It is a long road ahead of us. With the Supreme Court decision to overturn 100 years of policy to allow corporations (read: even foreign corporations) run political ads, expect a number of "news" vigilantes to come out of the woodwork and fill your Inboxes with their versions of the truth, payed for and supported by anyone, with information gotten by any means necessary.

I personally don't look forward to the 2010 elections.

Support: http://wikileaks.org

A question of resignation...

2010-01-13T21:33:17Z

I am wondering something that hopefully you, the reader, can answer.

The subject is about Harry Reid and the comments about President Obama. The GOP is up in arms about his statements. I read them, and found them lacking any kind of offensive material. Myself and a colleague discussed the same things while debating him for candidacy.

Some comments were:

* "the race thing will be hard to bring up on him since he is in a gray area of being black or white"
* "on the shallow side of things, being lighter skinned some people might have an easier time voting for him"
* "He articulates significantly better than any politician in the last 30 years, I wonder what people will say because it comes out of a black man's mouth?"

So my questions are these:

* For the conservatives who says political correctness is ruining this country, isn't the call for Reid's resignation a mixed message?
* Do you think he should resign?

To me what Biden said on the campaign trail was far more insensitive than Reids... opinions, thoughts?

Ban you fatties

2009-12-03T01:31:41Z

Now that we have made "candied" tobacco products illegal to buy and that many states are taking it upon themselves to choose what establishments can do in their private business we have lowered the number of smokers by 20%!

Hooray! That is a win for all of you for removing personal liberties for some benefits.

Problem is, that all of those lives we saved from smoking there is an increase of 48% of the number of obese people in the United States.

So now what? Do we start taking peoples body mass index (BMI) on their way to McDonald's and limit their choices? Perhaps we can make sure that restaurants only sell healthy food. But what about the people who cook at home? Maybe we can make sure they don't get their diploma unless they are an acceptable BMI.

Where are you willing to stop the injection of the "save me" government you created?

Five reasons to complain about Obama.

2009-10-28T14:42:00Z

Over the past few months I have been in a back and forth banter with a women in her 60s, who is constantly telling me about Obama's agenda. These "agendas" range from ACORN being in his back pocket, the start of a civil army run by the President* and that he is a Socialist/Marxist/Muslim sympathizer slowly and surely destroying America.

Update: I was asked by her to also add the radicals he surrounds himself with and all of the appointed "czars". Although I continue to inform her that the use of "czars", or better known as advisers, have no power nor are they precedent in numbers. Personally, the more people to better inform the President the better.

And because I am defending Obama against these outlandish attacks, I am now portrayed as a "Young Liberals that thinks our country sucks" and " one of those that thinks Obama is the Messiah and would never tell a lie".

I don't understand why so much effort is used by the GOP and the far-right to create these outlandish claims when he is doing things RIGHT NOW with no speculation. I am going to outline my top five complaints about Obama and how, if these people really want to "save America", they should combat against things he is actually doing.

Extension of the PATRIOT Act and FISA law

This one is at the top of my list. The PATRIOT Act was a failed attempt to protect this country in a time of crisis. It's 1000+ pages were drawn up and presented to Congress in a month after September 11th (October 23, 2001) and passed with an amazing quickness (House: October 24, 2001 and Senate: October 25, 2001). Only one, Senator Feingold, voted against it in the Senate.

Now 8 years later, the Obama administration is going to renew it, without review.

This means a few things:

Telecom companies are still untouchable
Third party information about citizens does not require a warrant, or a loose interpretation of warrant is portrayed.
Infinite detention of immigrants with potential to cause a terrorist attack

Amongst others.

Where is the CHANGE, that was portrayed during his campaign? I argue that all the surveillance laws needed are in the FISA law, and an amendment to the FISA law would be sufficient to combat this "new threat". Not taking it to a whole new level.

I highly suggest siding with the ACLU and sign their petition.

Lobbyist and Congressional Oversight

Congress gets payed well for what they do, but the real perk of being in congress is the lobbyist benefits.

Lobbyists come from the right of the American people to assemble in groups and petition the Congress to "do the bidding of the people". The problem, is our single emails, petitions or youtube videos don't hold as much clout as the $50,000 donations given by companies. And you can see it when congress talks, they back money.

Obama was going to CHANGE this. I understand the problem, how do you get the people getting the benefits vote to remove the benefits.

Signing Statements and open Government

Signing statements have yet to be really tested in our court systems, but they are still there. They have been used all the way back to Jefferson, but it wasn't until Regan that they became footnotes to what the President is actually willing to do. Bush loved his signing statements, and went as far as saying in them that he doesn't have to follow certain things depending if we are "at war" or not. So would a candidate who promised more open government and oversight use signing statements? Yup.

His promise is to take a "modest approach". The problem I see, is if things that are "unconstitutional" are even in the bill, don't sign it. Remove them and have the Attorney General consult congress on the dangers. Signing it and saying, essentially, "when it becomes a problem contact the AG before not doing it" is completely unconstitutional in itself. Don't put it into law if it isn't complete, this leads to misinterpretations later.

"Too big to fail" bill

Our financial sector has been hanging by a thread for a few years now, it has only been in the last year that the threads began to snap. I understand the $700,000,000,000.00 bill to "save" our lenders was needed to avoid the domino effect, but we have to realize that poor business models deserve to be replaced. Instead of trying to figure out "who will be saved", remove the safety net and you will be surprised on how much extra money these companies would find to keep their jobs.

Iraq and Afghanistan

In the interest of national security, peace and our financial system: Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other bases around the world. Especially middle eastern countries. Deal with the U.N. when dealing with terrorism in those countries. We are breeding more terrorists every day we are in there.

The good question always comes up: "What if China, to protect their financial system, decided to occupy the United States?" Just think of how the common person must feel. They live in a war torn country because we keep tearing it up with war!

You got the Peace Prize now do something to deserve it. Remove all of our troops, remove sanctions and open up free-trade, use the U.N. to work with Iran and North Korea. All of the money we would be saving could go into building infrastructure for these war torn countries. Do the right thing, Obama is obviously thinking about Afghanistan strategies.

Let's work together to make this country a better place, not divide us on speculation and untestable craziness. These are things Obama is DOING and they have a direct impact on our country's future.

********************
* Actual program at Change.gov

Smoking, part deux

2009-06-24T17:28:26Z

A good article on the rationale of the tobacco law that was just enacted yesterday.

So being an industry that has been around for centuries, the tobacco companies have learned to "go with the flow" to better serve themselves. This is apparent by the fact that the tobacco companies are behind this bill. Why would that be? Well for one, it will probably save them money in the long run. With tobacco products being sold as "more healthy" class action lawsuits will have less merit. Which makes the scenario of "tobacco companies packing up because of extended costs of the bill". Little did I know at the time of writing that the tobacco companies were all for this change.

You can see the thought bubbles in the eyes of the tobacco companies with the authors statement of:

"Tobacco companies wanted a rule that would let them market anything nominally safer than a conventional cigarette."

If it isn't clear what their new marketing strategy is, then remove the wool.

The author also agrees, and shows the FDA agrees, of the obvious prediction of users switching to illegal cigarettes in the case of the ban (and in my opinion the regulation) of cigarettes.

If you ban tobacco products, some people will quit, but others will just buy them illegally. And the illegal products will come with none of harm reduction that regulation can provide. The FDA acknowledged this problem years ago. If tobacco were outlawed, the agency explained, black-market suppliers would move in with products "even more dangerous than those currently marketed, in that they could contain even higher levels of tar, nicotine, and toxic additives."

All and all the author is for the ban, calling it "rational". But comparing it to the war on drugs, anything is rational.

Letter to Mitt Romney: What does a free and strong America mean to me?

2009-06-17T16:03:51Z

I tend not to donate to politicians and I especially tend not to donate more than $20. But I think the question Mitt Romney is asking is a fair one, even if it feels like a 4th grade school project. But I would like to take the time and answer it. And who knows, maybe no one will try for it and he will have to pick me!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

To me a free and strong United States must be derived from the use of three fundamental entitlements: education, responsibility and community. Education is the cornerstone of a free society. Critical skills such as inductive reasoning, open-mindedness, and creative outlets are needed to be shown in schools and allowed to flourish. The use of No Child Left Behind curbs these skills and teaches each student like they are a cookie cutout. In the long run this will not promote a strong United States. Instead, the diversification of schools and collaboration of multiple disciplinary special schools, interacting all over the United states and the world, should be promoted and established. From there all students and teachers are treated individually and their personal skills can be used and honed to the advantage of everyone.

From education comes responsibility. This includes responsibility for ones actions along with the responsibility to take care of themselves and others without need for government help. Without the use of government intervention the United States as a whole can grow stronger. The introduction of financial responsibility should be shown to high school students, preparing them for the personal responsibility and general understanding of the world.

Government must also be free and strong. A completely educated and responsible government would understand the need for community in both the next door neighbor to other countries. Opening all channels in travel, trade and dissemination. In doing so, we set up a vision for the future based by example instead of by the sword.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5)

iEYEARECAAYFAko5IWIACgkQ2ZVbbZM1O8jX9ACfXRF6iJiC1oksBuAN3VivLWwJ
XFsAmwWP08UCF8YjpFmJfmuYttQdely2
=A8Ec
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Twitter playing a role in the freedom of speech in Iran

2009-06-16T18:12:10Z

For those of you against the blatant false elections last Friday in Iran, there is something you can do.

Read this PDF file and if you understand it, help out. They need proxy servers and other cyberpunk tools.

Talkback: Free market works, keep unnecessary government regulations out.

2009-06-16T16:31:56Z

I finally have the time to sit down and respond to the comments from my previous post "Please Government: Protect me from myself!" As a general comment, I have to say this was nothing less than astounding. I didn't expect such emotional driven, facetious straw man arguments.

There were two common themes from the 6 comments: 1) The United States would fall apart if the government wasn't there to protect us, 2) people's choices to patron a particular establishment is based on no logic or reason.

It is extremely important to understand that under no circumstances should the government be a forcefully moral compass or to have a hand in determining social agendas. This makes the false assumption that the individuals we elect have 100% compatibility in our social and moral presumptions and 100% compatibility in everyone who voted from them. This also assumes the 49% of the people who didn't vote for the representative have changed their moral and social presumptions to go along with the representative. If this is the case, then every United States citizen is responsible for the torture and illegal detaining of terrorist prisoners because of the few who made the very wrong decision. This clearly cannot be the case because the Congress and Administration runs on their own moral and social agenda, no matter what the voters had originally wanted.

So I think I want to take the time to dispute some of the comments made on the previous post and hopefully in the process educate some of the commentators on what liberty should entail.

From Ellen: "The FDA will halve the allowable nicotine in cigarettes; smokers will buy twice as many packs as they did before; and government's tax revenues will double."

It is painfully clear in the article that they could not get enough votes to add "nicotine regulation" to the current bill. The bill only regulates the process of making the cigarettes. This may change your opinion on the bill being "best thing since sliced bread".

For fun, lets assume that Ellen had her facts straight and they were regulating the nicotine in the cigarettes or eliminating it all together. What would change? Well two things will happen and we know this because of the fabulous (sarcasm) "War on Drugs". The first is the importing of stronger cigarettes, albeit illegally. The second is the eventual removal of cigarette manufacturing from the United States. The second will come about because of Economics 101: supply vs. demand. The supply will slowly decline because of the use of illegal cigarettes and the removal of "casual smokers" and the ones who won't buy illegal cigarettes will only be able to afford so much. What is the punishment for buying illegal cigarettes? Five years in prison after "third strike" law kicks in?

So why even bother? Proctor & Gamble and Altria Group have thousands of other products. Eventually the price to maintain the business will outweigh the income and then all production will stop. Period. No more cigarette taxes, no more multi-billion dollar lawsuits that the government has percentages invested in.

From CVille_Dem: "Do you also disagree with helmet and seat-belt laws? Because we all pay for head-injured, and broken-bodied people who flout those laws; our insurance rates go up to cover their long-term care, and eventually when they end up on Medicaid, it comes out of our taxes too."

Not only do I disagree with helmet and seat-belt laws, but I also disagree with the current state of insurance companies and the clear monopolistic terms that they have on their consumers. The insurance system is drastically flawed and should be delt with accordingly. Saving someone the trouble of paying a medical bill isn't the governments job. I do not need someone to give me common sense. The implied "I don't want to pay for other's stupidity" is pointing the finger at the wrong person. Is it the individual that is causing the problems or the insurance company?

The tobacco companies actually add in addictive chemicals, which are separate from the tobacco itself. It's not quite as simple as you portray here, elite.

Agreed. At the same time, insurance rates aren't as simple as you protrayed either. So we can call a draw on that. But I think a more "Public Health Concern" is people who don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom, or one's that cough in their hands instead of a tissue. Should we start fining these people too?

Don't get me wrong, cigarettes are terrible for you. I don't smoke and I don't like to. I enjoy a occasional cigar with friends over some good whiskey and port. But at the end of the day it is my choice to ruin my body, just like it is people's choice to be grosly obeise. Just imagine how many lawsuits would come about if McDonalds stop selling to people with a terrible BMI. How is this any different?

Which brings me to the final point. Consumers and their pocket books make better regulators than the government. i.e. Free market works.

From LegalCat: "How about those government regulations that require restaurants to refuse service to customer who aren't wearing shoes? Against those too? I mean, sure, it's a public-health issue, but the government has no right to put concerns about public health above the convenience of people who want to do things that are bad for other people, right?"

First, I am unable to find any actual laws regulating "no shoes, no shirt, no service". To the best of my google searching, it seems this was a common practice by store owners in the 1950s near beaches, where people mainly wear shorts only. So, to my understanding, yes you don't need government to deny service to someone. And the only "public health" issue for no shoes would be for the owners, who would have to deal with lawsuits if someone cut their toes. So it isn't for the public, as much for the owners. And the owner can enact that. Similarly shops that allow dogs to come in, like PetSmart, or some restaurants. This could be a public health concern for those individuals with deathly alergies, or dogs biting. But you know what the greatest part is? You don't have to go there. No one is making you eat at that restauraunt. If enough people don't patron a store, it will close. Or, if you want to be proactive, get a petition together and go to the store owner and express your concerns. No need to get a bully to do your job for you. All it takes is a little responsibility and proactivness.

Should the government have the ability to regulate private businesses to make them prevent customers from spitting on the floor?

You answered your question in the first 10 words. The government should not have the ability to regulate private business if the public is not harmed. Yes, you can't shoot firearms in an establishment but you should be able spit on the floor if it is "Jerry's floor spiting saloon". And if you don't like spit on the floor, I suggest going elsewhere.

It only takes a little bit of common sense and economics 101 to realize that you don't need the big bad government to help you. The free market has put bar and smoking together, because people like to smoke when they are drunk. If you don't like it, go to a smoke free bar. If there aren't any, try to make your own or petition for your favorite bar to go smoke free. Using the government and siting bull like "the teenagers are being targetted" or "second hand smoke is killing me"* is just getting others to do your dirty work.

* Note: It is very clear that second and first hand smoke are very very bad for you. I suggest not breathing it in and not patron the establishments who don't respect your non-smoking wishes.

P.S. CycloneHog I will watch the video you posted when I get a chance, time is not on my side lately.

Please Government: Protect me from myself!

2009-06-12T20:37:57Z

With the overwhelming response of Congress to pass the US tobacco regulation bill, it gets me thinking: "What won't they regulate?"

So many things are done "for the children", so it comes as no surprise to me that the tobacco bill talks about banning even more ads that are targeting school children. What? When? And Where? I have never seen an advertisement that when I looked at it I said, "Screw my lungs and health, that is awesome!". (Where is Tony Hawk when you need him?)

But thanks to Congress' increasing distance from reality, we now will have FDA regulated cigarettes.

"Tobacco is such a serious and compelling public health problem, and we really do feel by being able to regulate tobacco and tobacco products we can reduce the burden of disease and help promote stronger smoking cessation efforts," Hamburg told reporters.

So you need this bill so you can then stop people from smoking? How about drinking? How about eating fatty steaks? In the US 936,923 people died in 2001 from Major Cardiovascular Diseases. Seems like the next "save me" bill that we need.

The facts are these:

To non-smokers, like myself, smoking is annoying.
Smoking is dangerous to your health and increases risks
Smoking is a turn off to a lot of people, decreasing your chances of relationships

But at the end of the day, smoking is the SMOKERS choice. They know it is dangerous, they know it can be addictive, they know it can eventually kill them. But you know what I do when I am confronted with a smoker? I move! I cross the street, I don't eat at that restaurant, I don't frequent that bar. And I support establishments that have non-smoking policies BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.*

A year or so back, President Bush vetoed a bill to tax cigarettes and give the money to children's insurance. This was another overstep of Congresses boundaries taxing a "bad" thing and giving it to a "good" thing. I supported President Bush's veto. Obama has expanded this program.

"Critics like Siegel said the bill did not go far enough.

Lawmakers could have banned nicotine as well as popular mint-flavored menthol cigarettes, raised the legal age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21 and restricted sales to certain stores, much like alcohol, Siegel said." (emphasis mine)

I'm sick and tired of government's implied duty to save me from myself.

Well smokers, enjoy your shitty light cigarettes or go online and find some real Mexican brand cigarettes. At least until they finish regulating the internet.

*Side note:
Government should have no ability to regulate private businesses to stop allowing patrons to smoke in their establishments. Also, the government should have no ability to force a private business to make patrons do anything. It is up to the business owner and that is all. In a public/government owned building or situation, by all means.

If you want to see a change, then give tax benefits to business that allow a completely non-smoking environment.

Here's hoping to peace in Iran.

2009-06-11T02:33:55Z

This has become a symbol as hope for the Reformist party.

Gay Marriage Solution: Tolerance

2009-06-10T15:41:19Z

I have to clarify some definitions before I start. When people speak about being for or against gay "marriage" they actually mean: marriage license. And a marriage license is a contract.

A little bit of history first. Marriage contracts were first contracts between two families. Typically for land or other promises between the marriage of kin. In the 16th century the Catholic Church became the way to validate marriages. This was the first state sanctioned marriages, based on the fact that the Catholic Church at the time was very powerful, politically.

The problem came in when the government started taking over the marriage validation business in the 1800s. Since then there has been a range of groups that were not allowed to marry whites: blacks being the most common. At the time, some of the same arguments were used that are used today in the spread of anti-gay marriage propaganda.

What are the objections to gay marriage? I've heard a number of arguments about this and I would like to comment on them.

It attacks the sanctity of marriage:

This is a spiritual question, and the default people throw out. But what does it mean? It seems clear by using the word "sanctity" it states that god is not pleased with the decision of the homosexual couples. But as Jesus said in James 4:12, "So who are you to judge your neighbor?" And words like that ring true. Who are you to judge who can be in love with another person, for how long and in what way? Isn't god's love supposed to be in the good of people, and treating another in a committed relationship sounds like something god would support.

But a state contract shouldn't be about religious beliefs, and the minute it is, one should stop themselves and realize the mistake that is being made. If homosexual couples want to get married in a Christian church, their only choice--that I know of--is the United Church of Christ. But this isn't about making a private institution "marry" homosexual couples, it is about creating a stable home in the eyes of the state and sharing the benefits that go along with that particular status. Be it fiscal or legal benefits.

Call gay marriage "civil unions" and heterosexual marriage "marriage":

Calling one "civil unions" and another "marriage" is fine in conversation, but in a lawyer's world this is the place to drive a wedge. If you don't believe that statement, it has already begun. One argument states that you can get all legal benefits by multiple contracts, but this costs thousands of dollars and a lot of legal benefits cannot be given as a contract. Such as: the benefit to get medical information or to be by their side in the case of an emergency.

It would be much better at the state level to call them both "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to conversation and religious ceremonies. And this would have to be done on all states, so legal issues do not ensue when moving to another state.

Marriage is for procreation, put a gay couple in a room, and no matter how hard they try, they cannot have a natural baby:

This is a true statement, and one that can cause quite a bit of grief in a debate. The problem is the statement is completely biased and straw man argument circling around the issue. By this definition of marriage the heterosexual couples who cannot have a baby "no matter how hard they try" would also not qualify for the term marriage.

Allowing gay marriage would have to also allow for marriage of children, animals or multiple wives:

This argument is by far the most outlandish but it has come up so many times that I have to address it. First the easiest: children and animals. Both cannot enter into a lawful contract. Children could with the co-sign of a guardian but the law is very clear about the "interest of the child" and will protect children from this outlandish contract.

As for "multiple wives", it is a contract and if all parties agree and condone the practice then there should be no reason to stop it. Even if one doesn't agree with the practice. What needs to be careful are the abusive relationships that occur in such a household.

The solution: Tolerance.

The solution seems straightforward and easy to me: stop playing semantics with words and allow homosexuals to enter into a marriage license/contract. No different wording, no different names and no different benefits. You hear advertisement of "freedoms being taken away" if homosexuals are allowed to marry, but these are false words only meant to scare the most casual observer. If you really think about who's liberty is being taken away it is the people who cannot walk into a court house and profess their love for one another by entering the same contract like any heterosexuals.

With a stable loving home, this would open the door to adoption, surrogate mother or sperm donation as viable ways to procreate and would allow for the proper legal benefits that married couples may take for granted: domestic dispute and the ability to adopt.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil

2009-06-09T15:37:12Z

I was going to start this blogging off a little slower, but with such gems in the news I feel I have to come out swinging. Welcome!

National security. It is a very important concept, and one of the only things the federal government should have charge over. Yet the term is being used to hide every blunder the federal government makes.

The newest is blocking the release of CIA interrogation tapes and photos. But it is even worse than that, the ACLU is trying to get the memos and emails regarding the interrogations because, get this, the interrogation tapes were destroyed. Nothing screams guilt like destroying evidence, just ask the Enron executives.

But that isn't how government works now, and it seems like the Obama administration is hoping to change this---but progress is very slow. The mentality in Washington says that any mistake the American government has made must be hidden from the world to remain credible. And this is what they really mean by "National Security", not the protection of the American people, but the protection of an image. A who's who in the hit tv show International Idol. The problem is, we are Spencer Pratt.

Our history with the CIA isn't the most righteous one. This has been well documented in the released classified documents Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner, and it all boils down to this: we torture.

When President Bush went out publicly and stated that we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before, he wasn't lying. Instead what had happened is everything the CIA used to do--nation building/destroying, interrogation techniques and espionage--has been moved to the US military. In doing so, it should have been more regulated by Congress, instead it ran wild. And that is what we are trying to hide.

So why does winning "International Idol" mean so much to national security and to save face? For one, we start to lose a voice in the international panel. But thanks to the work leading up to the Iraq war, the past administration deemed the UN useless and did its best to discredit the institution. Now Obama has a job to do, to keep his promise to us and the world of a more transparent government, while taking the flack for something he personally (hopefully) hasn't condoned himself.

But this leads to one difficulty, our cry outs for injustice of the world. Most recently, the two American reporters in North Korea sentenced to labour camps. It is this that should triumph as the sole reason to be an open and honest government, because saving Americans from irrational sentences around the world is a far more national security problem than how we look at the next "Leaders of the World Kegger".