Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for March, 2012

Protests Have a Place


This past year America has been reintroduced to a string of effective and informative protests, marches, and occupations. With these protests come all the people from different backgrounds that have their own opinions about the protests and whether or not they believe the protest will be effective. The most recent protest are people wearing hooded sweatshirts, hoodies, and go out marching and they beckon for justice for Trayvon Martin. In a few cases people have brought the protest to their place of work and have been punished for it, (D-IL) REP. Bobby Rush.

While I support the protest in general, I would have to say I don’t agree with the fact that Bobby Rush had the platform to make a change but wasted it. Bobby Rush is a person who can actually make a difference. He has the power to draft a bill and make the voices of millions heard but because he wanted to be apart of the protest he got his opportunity taken away. Some one in a place of power like Bobby Rush shouldn’t be apart of the protest or at least not the way he wanted to be. Today he should have went to that house floor and made his speech. He should have gotten peoples attention and then actually done something. But because of his protest we have to wait a little while longer before a person at the congressional level actually tries to make a difference.

I think this video portrays perfectly how different people view the protests.


P.C. Police… Literally


There’s a new law in New York that is absolutely ridiculous and should not have ever been thought of. It’s a law that polices political correctness. The law forces test makers in New York to leave out words like Birthday or Dinosaur so not to offend any one group of individuals. The law restricts words that people use every day and there’s really no way to avoid the use of them especially when the New York prohibit the use of fifty commonly used words. The list is comprehensive and ranges from words like birthday to abuse. Why would a word like abuse be on a standardized test. I can only imagine that question, “There are five children. Two of them are abused but four of them have bruises. How many children have bruises?”

The premise is somewhat reasonable. The law makers in New York want to protect children from being hurt or possibly being accidentally made to relive something horrible that happened in the past. This goes over the line of necessary protection though. If they don’t want to offend any one then have the test makers make sure they create the tests with questions that wont be perceived as offensive rather than cutting out the use of certain words that possibly, but most likely won’t, offend some people. This law is a perfect example of A) political correctness going way too far and B) government over stepping their boundaries even if they have the best intentions in mind.

There’s another problem with this law. If  they tell test makers not to use words like slaves or poverty on tests how can you teach kids about things like Pre- Civil War America or America during the Great Depression. This law is contradictory and will leave kids in catastrophic idiocy, which will lead to higher rates of poverty. Wait I’m not sure if I can use that word some one might be offended. These are words that can not and must not be avoided. To keep kids from seeing these words is only going to make it tougher for them when they grow up and deal with this stuff on a regular basis.

It’s absolutely ignorant to believe that if we don’t talk about something then  it doesn’t exist. Ignorance isn’t a good thing and it never has been so why do Americans continue to hide things from children or from regular Americans. We as a nation don’t need to be coddled or held close. We need to have veil removed from our eyes and examine and take everything for what it is rather than for what we want it to be. We all need to grow up and be more mature and stop being so willfully ignorant because the longer we accept the ignorance the longer we will be in the dark being controlled like puppets by some creepy puppeteer.

And I know I kind of sounded like a conspiracy theorist in this post and I don’t really like sounding that way.

PROHIBITED WORDS:

Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)

Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs

Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)

Bodily functions

Cancer (and other diseases)

Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)

Celebrities

Children dealing with serious issues

Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)

Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)

Crime

Death and disease

Divorce

Evolution

Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes

Gambling involving money

Halloween

Homelessness

Homes with swimming pools

Hunting

Junk food

In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge

Loss of employment

Nuclear weapons

Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)

Parapsychology

Politics

Pornography

Poverty

Rap Music

Religion

Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)

Rock-and-Roll music

Running away

Sex

Slavery

Terrorism

Television and video games (excessive use)

Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)

Vermin (rats and roaches)

Violence

War and bloodshed

Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)

Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.


The Court of Public Opinion


People continue to call George Zimmerman a racist evil person. Whether or not Zimmerman is racist is not  at question nor is the question of whether or not he is an evil person. And those things shouldn’t be at question but for some reason people are alluding to this concept and forgetting the more important thing in this case, which is the death of and finding justice for Trayvon Martin.We as a nation aren’t allowing justice to take it’s course. We have already decided that either Trayvon Martin was innocent or George Zimmerman was defending himself. We even have people posting fake photos of Martin and claiming things that are irrelevant to the case. However people who believe Zimmerman was absolutely wrong have called for his death and are releasing things that shouldn’t be released to the public. So, both sides of this case are doing things to sway public opinion.

People are making statements saying that George Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested yet and it’s a travesty of justice. What those people don’t know is that the Sanford Police department couldn’t and still can’t arrest Zimmerman because of the Stand Your Ground Law, which is Zimmerman’s main defense. This kind of case is unique because has received national attention and is polarizing but, at the same time it’s not unique because many people have claimed self defense in Florida and hadn’t been arrested. So the public outcry is necessary and it has gotten some things done but, the public outcry for the Sanford Police Department to arrest Zimmerman would force the police to break the law. And don’t get me wrong I want to see Zimmerman arrested and have a law enforcement agency run the tests that the Sanford Police Department ran on Trayvon Martin. Not because I have jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty but because that’s what the public wants, that’s what should have happened some time ago, and to see if by any Zimmerman was abusing any drugs on that February night.

The other problem Americans are having with this case is that they are trying to sway public opinion to favor a side for example Michelle Malkin posted a fake photo and people some how got Zimmerman’s whole history. People are talking about why Martin was at his fathers which was because he was suspended from school for having a bag that might have had marijuana in it and that information has nothing to do with this case but, it paints Martin ;to some, as a bad person. If you know anything about teenagers then you’d know that kids make mistakes and this doesn’t portray Martin as a bad kid. Information that was released about Zimmerman has been used against to prove that he had a nose for violence and while lawyers may be able to use the information the public should not have any information about either person in this case. Media should only portray the people in this case as it pertains to this case. So nothing should be leaked about previous infractions of either male and there should be no one defending either person. We as the public are not a judge nor a jury nor an executioner so we should not receive any information that would sway our judgement to any one’s favor.

There’s another thing that many people are discussing and it has actually caused quite a raucous. That thing I am talking about is profiling more specifically racial profiling. It is evident that race had some influence in the case of Martin and Zimmerman. Geraldo Rivera said the hoodie Martin was wearing is just as guilty for his as Zimmerman. Geraldo said that Black and Latino youths should stay away from hooded sweatshirts because they may be perceived as a threat. That is the definition of profiling and it really has to stop. And if it doesn’t more children may be killed for belonging to a minority community.


Really Smart Words


In an interview today former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona,  said something really smart. He said ” I look at things rationally based on the best science.” His words are so simple and actually make sense but for some reason a lot of congressman don’t do this. I’m not bashing religion or religious people but I am calling out religious congressman and women. We live in America and there should be no religious aspects in our government. If I lived in Arizona I would be voting for Mr. Carmona even if he weren’t a democrat.


Endorsements or Mascots


Do you remember your high school days when there were multiple mascots at your school? My high school of Long Beach Poly had at least seven. We had two for football, one for men’s basketball, one for women’s basketball, two for baseball, and one that would appear every now and again at wrestling matches. One of my friends asked me once why our school had so many different mascots, at the time I was filled with bewilderment and spent many hours contemplating why we had so many mascots for one school with only five thousand students. I then realized that the different mascots did different things and appealed to different crowds. The football mascots were the most acrobatic and most thrilling of the mascots. The men’s basketball team had a man Jackrabbit where the women’s basketball team had a woman Jackrabbit. The baseball mascots carried big signs and did a lot of stupid dances. And well the wrestling mascot ran up and down the stands and practiced shots. The mascots all kept peoples attention and prevented people from the events early if the events were boring. That’s kind of what endorsements they thrill people and keep people intrigued.

This morning Jeb Bush announced his endorsement for Mitt Romney. Jeb Bush’s endorsement did two things, one; it cleared up any notion that he would join the presidential race and two;  it may have helped convince people who think Mitt Romney is a moderate that he’s not that middle of the aisle. Jeb Bush’s endorsement also appeals to those establishment republicans who haven’t decided who they are going to vote for yet. So far Mitt has endorsements from comedian Jeff Foxworthy, musician Kid Rock, business mogul Donald Trump, the news paper The Chicago Tribune, and many more. All these individuals play to different kinds of people. Jeff Foxworthy plays to the average American while Kid Rock plays to the crowd from other side of the tracks. Donald Trump appeals to those business looking for more people like them in politics and The Chicago Tribune can reach those independents in a liberal dominated area.

With all these people dropping endorsements there’s a question that has to be asked. That question is do endorsements really garner any voters to any individual candidate. The answer can be debated and often is. Some will say an endorsement from the right candidate can get any voter to vote for any candidate. Others will say absolutely not endorsers are nothing more than mascots and while they may grab peoples attention it won’t garner any one persons vote. I have seen both examples but for the most part I have to say endorsements don’t really matter. If an endorsement were to really work the endorsement would have to come from an individual that gets a lot of attention and has a strong following. Say Tim Tebow offers an endorsement and endorses Mitt Romney I would say a lot of people would then vote for Mitt Romney.

There’s also a problem endorsements from figures as polarizing Tim Tebow. They may turn people away from the candidates they endorse. Endorsers that have a love/hate relationship with America should just be weary of when and if  they should announce their endorsements. Endorsements can really be a catch 22 situation only if the endorser is a polarizing figure. Other than that they are just mascots.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Stand Your Ground


With the unjustifiable death, or murder really, of Trayvon Martin countless Americans have been introduced to the Castle Doctrine which in some states is known as the Stand Your Ground Law or Make My Day Law. To say these laws are vague and don’t really define anything would be an extreme understatement. See the law dates all the way back to 1628 when an English jurist Sir Edward Coke. Since its inception the Castle Law has been renamed and has many restrictions added and taken away from it until the law has become the laws we have now in the United States.

The law originally granted people to protect themselves and their homes from intrusion even if it meant the possibility “justifiable” homicide. That was the original Castle Doctrine, the later drafter Make My Day law extended out to ones car or means of transportation. The name of the law is a reference to the line uttered by the character Harry Callahan, played by Clint Eastwood, in the movie Sudden Impact. The later drafted Stand Your Ground Law or No Duty To Retreat Law not only extends to outside your home or car but also any where you have a right to be. So, let’s say I am in Delaware just walking down the street and I see an assailant walking towards me. If I feel endangered I have not only the right to defend myself but also if need be the right to commit “justifiable” homicide.

Some groups like the NRA and other gun-rights groups will argue the Stand Your Ground Law only defends people defending their homes. Other groups like the Brady Campaign and additional gun control groups claim that the law will eventually lead to innocent people being hurt and killed. There are a few examples of the Stand Your Ground Law being taken to the extreme. One example is in 2007 a cops son ruthlessly attacked one man while the victims back was to the assailant then the assailant stormed off and attacked a homeless who was just standing there, the homeless man was literally just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cops son claimed the Stand Your Ground as his reason to attack the two men. The most recent and probably more atrocious case was the death of seventeen year old Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman  shot and killed the young teenager without really any reason. George Zimmerman was told by the 911 operators not to follow Martin but did anyways. When the police arrived on the scene  they found that Trayvon Martin was visiting his father and only had skittles, an Arizona Iced Tea, and cell phone on his person.

In both cases there were three victims one white male and two black males. Also, in both cases there was no arrest made at the scene of the crime. So, why did these two assailants get to go home while one victim was severely injured, another victim hospitalized, and the final victims life taken. Well it’s because in both cases the assailants claimed the Stand Your Ground Law as their defense and the police took it as there was no need to arrest the two attackers. It’s mind boggling that they were able to claim this law as their defense though, because in both cases there was some kind of evidence that proved both assailants were unprovoked. In the case of Jonathan Collison, the cops son, there was video tape of him viciously attacking both victims unprovoked. In the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman was recorded saying he saw Trayvon Martin and began following him. Provided with that information how does a police officer not make an arrest. There’s another interesting fact, in both cases the managing police officer at the crime scene was the same man.

A lot of people have been claiming an air racism in the cases. I am definitely the last person to jump to that conclusion however, in this case it is unavoidable. Whether it’s police ignoring to arrest the assailants or the assailants attacking black men for no reason, especially in the case of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman had no reason to believe Trayvon Martin was a criminal and he had no reason to be carrying a gun when patrolling for neighborhood watch. I mean it’s the neighborhood watch, your job is described in the title you watch the neighborhood nothing more nothing less. Zimmerman’s acts of vigilantism were caked in racism. Going after a young man simply because he’s black there was no other reason Zimmerman had to follow Martin. The racism was actually heard in a 911 call.

I am one year older than Trayvon Martin, I have dealt with racism on numerous accounts. I have been called a nigger during lacrosse games. I have had women and men clench their belongings when I have entered an elevator. I have been stopped by police walking home after football practice. And I have grown accustom to all those things but, after hearing the story of Trayvon Martin the racial profiling really needs to stop. I mean Trayvon Martin was seventeen and rather small, one-hundred-forty pounds, and he was perceived as a threat to a man a decade older than him and at least one hundred pounds heavier. So there are definite racist sentiments. I know racism will always exist but we need to try harder to stop it but we need to stop being so politically correct about things to.



It seems I may have been wrong about the legislation in Arizona. It does not allow doctors to lie to their patients. However it does allow doctors to withhold information without the possibility of lawsuits being filed against said doctors. So while the bill doesn’t allow doctors to outright lie, it allows doctors to express lies of omission, which are just as bad as lies, without the possibility of being sued. Author of this post, Terrance H., was kind enough to ping me back to his website where I learned about the mistakes I made. I appreciate that but, he did call me a liar without consulting or asking me where I got my information. I would never disrespect Terrance H. in that way but, then again I am a very respectful person. So thank you Terrance H. for correcting me but, please next time consult me before calling me a liar.



Whatever

A friend of mine is a physician who wants to speak about transvaginal ultrasounds but whose position makes it precarious to speak publicly about it. So I’m letting this doctor borrow my site for an entry to speak anonymously on the matter. Obviously, I will vouch for the doctor being a doctor and being qualified to speak on the subject.

Update, 9:14pm: This post is being linked to far and wide, so we’re getting lots of new readers and commenters. It’s important that before you comment you read the site disclaimer and comment policy. I delete comments I find particularly stupid. Try not to write one of them.

Update: 12:13am, 3/21: I’m going to bed, so I turned off the comments for the night. I’ll turn them back on when I get up tomorrow. Night!

Update: 1pm, 3/21: As a head’s up to people, at 8pm eastern time…

View original post 936 more words


Misogyny Or Not


I know I am late to the party but at least I’m here. The party I am talking about is the party discussing whether or not President Obama should make his Super Pac, the organization with whom he cannot coordinate with, return Bill Maher’s one million dollar donation. Many people claim Bill Maher is misogynistic and just a nasty person in general. Those same people also claim Bill Maher’s jokes about Sarah Palin are just reprehensible as the remarks made right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh. What those people who claim this fail to recognize is the difference between the two commentators statements. Rush’s comments a few weeks ago not only denigrated Sandra Fluke but also all women who seek coverage for contraception medication. Bill’s comments , while unnecessary, were directed at several individuals and not all women as a vast group.

Many of the people claiming Bill Maher is a vile misogynist must not know the definition of the words misogyny or misogynist. Dictionary.com defines misogyny as the general hatred, dislike, or mistrust of womankind and also defines a misogynist as a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats womankind. Now, if we go by those definitions just about every teenage boy is a misogynist. But dictionary’s, no matter how useful, lack a grip on real life. So while the dictionary says mistreatment of women is misogynistic, we have to look within ourselves to see what falls under mistreatment. While you can verbally mistreat some one I personally don’t believe the words expressed by Maher were mistreatment. At the most one might consider Maher’s statements were a little over the top, if that person were sane.

Also, one must look at the forums in which the commentators statements were made. Rush’s statements were made on his politically charged radio that used to average twenty-three listeners daily. Whereas Bill’s statements were made in his stand up comedy act which probably had some where between several thousand to tens of thousands per show which still doesn’t equate to the three day long tirade of Rush Limbaugh. While Bill has made statements on his politically charged HBO show “Real Time With Bill Maher” he still hasn’t made harsh statements against all of womankind. And Bill Mahers primary career is also to make people laugh, he is a comedian first and foremast and has always been a comedian first. Let’s not forget that the right wing puts Rush Limbaugh on a pedestal while the left only acknowledges Bill Maher as a political funny man.

Even if you still don’t believe Bill Maher isn’t a misogynist think about one of his closest friends, conservative author Ann Coulter. What would a misogynist be doing with such a strong willed and extremely opinionated woman such as Ann Coulter if that person supposedly hates women. Bill Maher will also be the first to tell you he is a potty mouth but he will also defend himself from any claims of being a misogynist. Many times he has said that he doesn’t have a problem with Sarah Palin for being a conservative or being a woman, he has problem with Sarah Palin, these are his words not mine, a dangerous nincompoop. So before anybody else goes delving into the realm of Bill Maher being a misogynist just remember the facts.


Abortion Leads To Breast Cancer


On top of the many ridiculous things the new abortion laws have introduced into my young life, probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard is that an Arizona law would make it legal for doctors to lie to their patients seeking abortions. In fact, not only does this law allow doctors to lie to their patients seeking abortions but it forces doctors to lie to their patients. What is this lie doctors, even if they are unwilling to lie to patients, have to spread? Well the lie is that abortions lead to and are linked to breast cancer. If that sounds ridiculous to you either you are a sane person or you are not a republican legislator from Arizona.

The sad part about this bill is that there are at least three more state bills that are similar to the one in Arizona. I know for certain that the states of Kansas and New Hampshire have similar bills in the works and possibly Indiana. I think it’s absolutely erroneous for these Conservative law makers to say getting an abortion is sinning but they feel it’s acceptable to force others to sin, lie, as long as they keep women from getting abortions. Where’s the line in the sand that these law makers say there should when it comes to the laws they create and peoples individual freedoms.

I believe it is not only erroneous but also hypocritical when these Conservative law makers jump down the throats of Liberal or Progressive law makers and judge those Liberal law makers by saying they are restricting peoples freedoms. Now, if you want to compare wanting everybody to pay into social security or universal healthcare to forcing women to keep unwanted babies that might have been conceived from rape or just unplanned conception then yes, you are absolutely right and Liberal law makers are just as guilty of restricting peoples individual freedoms. However, if you don’t find the law makers ideas comparable then you are an intelligent individual.

Before these bills were brought to my attention I thought the alleged War on Women was just something blown out of proportion or at least something being operated by the small religious right. But now after reading these bills and seeing that a majority of the republicans in these states support these bills I have to believe that there actually is possibly and most likely a War on Women. At the very least these conservative law makers want to revert back to a patriarchal society and have women simply be house wives who stay at home, look after the kids, and make babies when ever a man dictates he wants another baby. If that’s what they want I have no problem with them enforcing that society in their respective homes, this is America and if a couple decides a woman should stay at home that is there decision. When they try to force their beliefs upon every house hold though, that is when I take issue and so should every body. I am not saying what I believe is right nor am I saying what those people believe is wrong. I am saying don’t force your beliefs on me.