In his article, The United States Government, Preston Flood writes that as Americans we should remember the great things America does and let go of the negativity aimed at the government.
Conservatives think that it’s unpatriotic to be liberal and especially to challenge the administration or government - that liberals have no appreciation for our great country.
The truth is that the people who continue to challenge, criticize and scrutinize the government are the real patriots, actually, no matter if their hearts are red or blue. Those patriots know exactly what America stands for – what it is about the Constitution and American heritage that makes the US a country to be proud of. Those patriots do not take that greatness for granted. Quite the opposite – they fight to protect what is great about our country fiercely. They stand up every day to make note that the US stands for freedom and no one, not even our own, will take that from us. They stand up and say that the US has the resources to make our country and even the world a better place and demand that our government does the best it can for everyone. They get up every morning and are thankful for where they live.
If they took it for granted, they wouldn’t fight. They wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t give it a second thought. They’d say, “Ah well, for now I’ve got mine, so the politicians can do whatever they want.” They would accept the system to be as perfect as possible and never question it again. Blind Faith.
That Americans continue to challenge and rebel is the essence of the United States. Instead of reminding the liberals who do the “Bush bashing” that America is great, the country would be better served to remind those who do nothing that apathy is un-American. It doesn’t matter if a person is conservative or liberal, Southern Baptist or Unitarian Universalist - whatever the cause, whatever the beliefs, to step up and fight for a cause, to continually check that which might be wrong, to question, protest and shout for what is right - that is America.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Praying for Education
Yesterday the President attended the “White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools.” I found his speech while looking for some information about the disintegrating line between church and state, not in reference to him in particular, but this is a great example.
While this is Bush’s speech, this is not just his personal issue. This is a belief that is held by many people. While it is significant that it is his speech, it is the principle that is critical.
I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of/from religion. I believe every person on the planet should be free to practice their beliefs, theist or atheist or whatever, in their own way as long as no one has to tolerate someone else’s beliefs in order to enjoy the rest of their civil rights and liberties. If you want to pray before you eat your school lunch, good for you. Shoot, if you want to hand me a religious pamphlet while I’m pumping my gas, I’ll say thanks, but no thanks and hand it back so you can reuse it. My life isn’t less because of it.
However, no one should have to pray for a good education.
In his speech the President discusses ways to improve education for children, specifically poor inner city children. Even with No Child Left Behind, he admits many schools are unable to provide quality or even adequate education. He seems to think, that investing in a new, primarily faith-based school program will be money better spent than investing in the existing schools with reform, innovation or just plain funding. He says that in faith-based schools, educators can carry out their “mission of training children in faith,” children who don’t share the religious tradition of the school. He adds that at faith-based schools, children can learn the value of discipline and character. Religion has the market on Discipline and Character.
The point of the summit is to discuss different ways to keep faith-based schools in business and how to increase the number of children who attend them.
The President suggests a few ideas. He mentions philanthropy and tax credits for commercial donations. Primarily he believes in abolishing the Blaine Amendments so that federal, state and local tax money can be used for grants, scholarships or to set up a voucher system. He says the Blaine Amendments are an antiquated act of bigotry against Catholics and that this “discrimination continues to harm low income children.” I’m sure it is not accidental that he uses words like “bigotry” and “discrimination” when the majority people who would be served, in theory, would be African Americans who could be sensitive to those words even if not used about them.
Bush makes a point of saying that we use tax dollars to help charities with religious ties, like the Salvation Army, and he says we use tax dollars in grants to pay for higher education, which a student could choose to use at a religious school. He uses this as a precedent for funding the faith-based schools. There is active debate about whether those programs should be funded in this way as well.
I very much believe that the funds he wants to spend on faith-based schools should be going to public schools. If public schools are beyond repair alternative forms of education might be the right answer. The charter schools in New York are a great idea, where schools provide an option of having a particular focus on top of regular education; however, if tax dollars are paying any portion, the law is clear that the education needs to be fully secular.
You can read his entire speech here.
While this is Bush’s speech, this is not just his personal issue. This is a belief that is held by many people. While it is significant that it is his speech, it is the principle that is critical.
I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of/from religion. I believe every person on the planet should be free to practice their beliefs, theist or atheist or whatever, in their own way as long as no one has to tolerate someone else’s beliefs in order to enjoy the rest of their civil rights and liberties. If you want to pray before you eat your school lunch, good for you. Shoot, if you want to hand me a religious pamphlet while I’m pumping my gas, I’ll say thanks, but no thanks and hand it back so you can reuse it. My life isn’t less because of it.
However, no one should have to pray for a good education.
In his speech the President discusses ways to improve education for children, specifically poor inner city children. Even with No Child Left Behind, he admits many schools are unable to provide quality or even adequate education. He seems to think, that investing in a new, primarily faith-based school program will be money better spent than investing in the existing schools with reform, innovation or just plain funding. He says that in faith-based schools, educators can carry out their “mission of training children in faith,” children who don’t share the religious tradition of the school. He adds that at faith-based schools, children can learn the value of discipline and character. Religion has the market on Discipline and Character.
The point of the summit is to discuss different ways to keep faith-based schools in business and how to increase the number of children who attend them.
The President suggests a few ideas. He mentions philanthropy and tax credits for commercial donations. Primarily he believes in abolishing the Blaine Amendments so that federal, state and local tax money can be used for grants, scholarships or to set up a voucher system. He says the Blaine Amendments are an antiquated act of bigotry against Catholics and that this “discrimination continues to harm low income children.” I’m sure it is not accidental that he uses words like “bigotry” and “discrimination” when the majority people who would be served, in theory, would be African Americans who could be sensitive to those words even if not used about them.
Bush makes a point of saying that we use tax dollars to help charities with religious ties, like the Salvation Army, and he says we use tax dollars in grants to pay for higher education, which a student could choose to use at a religious school. He uses this as a precedent for funding the faith-based schools. There is active debate about whether those programs should be funded in this way as well.
I very much believe that the funds he wants to spend on faith-based schools should be going to public schools. If public schools are beyond repair alternative forms of education might be the right answer. The charter schools in New York are a great idea, where schools provide an option of having a particular focus on top of regular education; however, if tax dollars are paying any portion, the law is clear that the education needs to be fully secular.
You can read his entire speech here.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Mandatory HPV Vaccines
In the article Only 25 Percent of Teenage Girls Has an STD C. Gear discusses HPV Vaccines . I’m glad to see this topic come up. This is one of those things I haven’t totally made my mind up on and so to take the time to give it more thought is certainly time well spent.
When I first heard about this vaccine I thought it was great. I still do. Though the research for this drug was more in response to cancer prevention than the STD aspect, anytime there is scientific advancement in eliminating diseases... well, who can say that’s a bad thing.
When the debate started over making the vaccination mandatory, I balked. I think somewhere in my possibly cracked mind mandatory=undemocratic. I understand the mandatory vaccinations that schools currently require. In contrast to the HPV vaccine, though, they protect against illnesses that are transmitted by casual contact. And while I wholeheartedly agree that teenagers are having sex and denying it is foolish, HPV isn’t something that a student walking around is going to spread to just anyone.
And yet, there is almost certainly no harm in giving this vaccine to girls and young women. While there has been no lifetime testing, 99% of me is sure it’s safe.
And so, I’m conflicted.
I guess my only hang-up is that while I think vaccination is probably a really, really good idea, a girl who was not vaccinated and has HPV isn’t exposing everyone she comes into contact with. When entering into a sexual relationship those individuals are choosing to take the risk of getting HPV along with all the other risks of sex. The guy who uses the water fountain after the kid with measles isn’t necessarily choosing to take any risk.
I agree with the commenter who brings up education. I think sex education should certainly be better – especially in regions where only abstinence is taught. I think on top of that though, there needs to be more public education about the disease and advantages of the vaccine. Something other than commercials for the drug.
So for now, while I’m still somewhat debating with myself on the subject, I think more education should be mandatory and then let the young women or their parents make the decision about the vaccine.
When I first heard about this vaccine I thought it was great. I still do. Though the research for this drug was more in response to cancer prevention than the STD aspect, anytime there is scientific advancement in eliminating diseases... well, who can say that’s a bad thing.
When the debate started over making the vaccination mandatory, I balked. I think somewhere in my possibly cracked mind mandatory=undemocratic. I understand the mandatory vaccinations that schools currently require. In contrast to the HPV vaccine, though, they protect against illnesses that are transmitted by casual contact. And while I wholeheartedly agree that teenagers are having sex and denying it is foolish, HPV isn’t something that a student walking around is going to spread to just anyone.
And yet, there is almost certainly no harm in giving this vaccine to girls and young women. While there has been no lifetime testing, 99% of me is sure it’s safe.
And so, I’m conflicted.
I guess my only hang-up is that while I think vaccination is probably a really, really good idea, a girl who was not vaccinated and has HPV isn’t exposing everyone she comes into contact with. When entering into a sexual relationship those individuals are choosing to take the risk of getting HPV along with all the other risks of sex. The guy who uses the water fountain after the kid with measles isn’t necessarily choosing to take any risk.
I agree with the commenter who brings up education. I think sex education should certainly be better – especially in regions where only abstinence is taught. I think on top of that though, there needs to be more public education about the disease and advantages of the vaccine. Something other than commercials for the drug.
So for now, while I’m still somewhat debating with myself on the subject, I think more education should be mandatory and then let the young women or their parents make the decision about the vaccine.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Terrorism is killing The Constitution, and his name is George Bush
From Wikipedia’s article, United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.
The fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Like many Americans, I’ve watched Bush repeatedly cross this particular line of constitutionality. How far will we let the administration go? Maybe the question is how can we get them to stop?
The place where I think most people see this is at the airport, where the Department of Homeland Security turns unskilled laborers into gods. Of course the Department and TSA have procedures and guidelines for which travelers they pick for extra screening, but they won’t tell anyone what those guidelines are. On top of those guidelines, agents have a lot of power and really need no provocation to decide you’re one of the randomly chosen. I’m not sure how they rationalize “random” as “probable cause.”
One of the more recent trends in these searches is the searching of data and electronics. It used to be you’d put your laptop bag on the belt (still wearing shoes and your jacket), walked through the detector and then went on your merry way. Occasionally I’d see them ask someone to turn it on – I guess to check and make sure it wasn’t a case hiding something else. This happened to someone I was traveling with once and my first thought was, shoot, what if your battery was dead. Heh, anyways. Now agents have the power to do much more and they are.
This issue is raising a lot of debate over what is property and what is an extension, essentially, of intellectualism. Some of us might be embarrassed by what an agent might find or feel like our privacy is violated, like when Mom reads your diary. That is certainly important. But there are other serious implications. Most companies rely heavily on proprietary information. Agents can ask you for all your passwords, to see all your files and data, search extensively. This issue is being tried in courts but not getting very far yet.
A great number of unreasonable things can put you at risk for extra search – the wrong name or color of skin, that you bought your tickets at the last minute, and where you’re flying from. Of course, if you look at the TSA guy wrong, he can consider that cause for search.
I ran across an article this week, I hope you saw it… from CNN, Traveler says she was forced to remove nipple ring
TSA has moved beyond unreasonable searching of property, physical or electronic, and went right on to violating people’s bodies. This woman offered ample availability to have a female agent privately inspect the piercings that set off the metal detector (still too far in my book) but nope, wasn’t good enough. She had to remove them. Now unlike the deal with “full body cavity search” you see in movies, and I guess probably are real, you can’t actually hide a whole lot in a nipple ring or the actually pierced skin. TSA states in their Passenger Civil Rights “We are also committed to treating each traveler with dignity and respect throughout the screening process.” I’m sure she was feeling dignity and respect as the TSA workers laughed. She’s suing of course. If she doesn’t win, I’m moving to Europe.
How far are we going to let them go? Not just TSA or the Department of Homeland Security, but the administration as a whole. This isn’t the only right we’ve lost as individuals in the last seven years. They’ve used Terror as a means to put themselves above the law. George Bush has repeatedly shown he believes himself to be above the Constitution. He does not need to pay heed to the Bill of Rights. He alone knows what is best for this country no matter what we think. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights is one of the characteristics of fascism. So is Obsession with National Security.
I pray everyday that we actually survive as a democracy until the next presidency. Okay, I don’t really pray exactly, I’m an atheist. Don’t tell anyone though, I think it’s cause for wire-tapping.
On electronic searches: From the Washington Post, Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches
And
From CNN, Suit: Airport searches of laptops, other devices intrusive
Additional reading for your pleasure: George Bush and the 14 points of fascism from Old American Century
In case they’ve been trounced upon so many times you forgot what they were: The Bill of Rights care of www.constitution.org
Because I mentioned it and it’s amazing that they pretend this is their policy: TSA's Passenger Civil Rights
The fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Like many Americans, I’ve watched Bush repeatedly cross this particular line of constitutionality. How far will we let the administration go? Maybe the question is how can we get them to stop?
The place where I think most people see this is at the airport, where the Department of Homeland Security turns unskilled laborers into gods. Of course the Department and TSA have procedures and guidelines for which travelers they pick for extra screening, but they won’t tell anyone what those guidelines are. On top of those guidelines, agents have a lot of power and really need no provocation to decide you’re one of the randomly chosen. I’m not sure how they rationalize “random” as “probable cause.”
One of the more recent trends in these searches is the searching of data and electronics. It used to be you’d put your laptop bag on the belt (still wearing shoes and your jacket), walked through the detector and then went on your merry way. Occasionally I’d see them ask someone to turn it on – I guess to check and make sure it wasn’t a case hiding something else. This happened to someone I was traveling with once and my first thought was, shoot, what if your battery was dead. Heh, anyways. Now agents have the power to do much more and they are.
This issue is raising a lot of debate over what is property and what is an extension, essentially, of intellectualism. Some of us might be embarrassed by what an agent might find or feel like our privacy is violated, like when Mom reads your diary. That is certainly important. But there are other serious implications. Most companies rely heavily on proprietary information. Agents can ask you for all your passwords, to see all your files and data, search extensively. This issue is being tried in courts but not getting very far yet.
A great number of unreasonable things can put you at risk for extra search – the wrong name or color of skin, that you bought your tickets at the last minute, and where you’re flying from. Of course, if you look at the TSA guy wrong, he can consider that cause for search.
I ran across an article this week, I hope you saw it… from CNN, Traveler says she was forced to remove nipple ring
TSA has moved beyond unreasonable searching of property, physical or electronic, and went right on to violating people’s bodies. This woman offered ample availability to have a female agent privately inspect the piercings that set off the metal detector (still too far in my book) but nope, wasn’t good enough. She had to remove them. Now unlike the deal with “full body cavity search” you see in movies, and I guess probably are real, you can’t actually hide a whole lot in a nipple ring or the actually pierced skin. TSA states in their Passenger Civil Rights “We are also committed to treating each traveler with dignity and respect throughout the screening process.” I’m sure she was feeling dignity and respect as the TSA workers laughed. She’s suing of course. If she doesn’t win, I’m moving to Europe.
How far are we going to let them go? Not just TSA or the Department of Homeland Security, but the administration as a whole. This isn’t the only right we’ve lost as individuals in the last seven years. They’ve used Terror as a means to put themselves above the law. George Bush has repeatedly shown he believes himself to be above the Constitution. He does not need to pay heed to the Bill of Rights. He alone knows what is best for this country no matter what we think. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights is one of the characteristics of fascism. So is Obsession with National Security.
I pray everyday that we actually survive as a democracy until the next presidency. Okay, I don’t really pray exactly, I’m an atheist. Don’t tell anyone though, I think it’s cause for wire-tapping.
On electronic searches: From the Washington Post, Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches
And
From CNN, Suit: Airport searches of laptops, other devices intrusive
Additional reading for your pleasure: George Bush and the 14 points of fascism from Old American Century
In case they’ve been trounced upon so many times you forgot what they were: The Bill of Rights care of www.constitution.org
Because I mentioned it and it’s amazing that they pretend this is their policy: TSA's Passenger Civil Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
