VA Going Down The Wrong Path

My home state of Virginia seems to be poised to put the issue of gay marriage on the ballot. The state already has laws preventing this, but the new legislation would change the bill of rights of the state constitution.

Many states have already passed similar laws and amendments. These laws are all formed out of bigotry, hatred, and fear. Two men or two women getting married does not affect anyone except for them. If a church wants to tell two guys that they will not perform a ceremony that is fine, but marriage in the eyes of the law should be treated as a contract that can be between any two people. All of the laws passed are rooted in hate and backwards religious interpretations. As recently as the 70s, states have quoted the Bible in overturning gay marriages.

Currently, when politicians protest gay marriage, they say that it goes against "tradition." The only traditions to say anything against gay marriage are religious in nature. This notion violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of our country, which explicitly states,

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"


Issues concerning rights are too important to be put to a vote. We aren't talking about priviledges here. Driving is a priviledge. Getting welfare is a priviledge. Establishing a contract with another person is a right. Should freedom of speech be put to a vote? How about abortion? How about allowing people to have more than 2 children? It is up to judges who recognize the spirit and words of the constitutions of the state and the country to realize that everyone should have equal rights.

The easiest way to fix these situations is to totally remove government from marriage. Why should we even have to buy a license to get married? Who is giving us permission, and what exactly are they giving us permission to do? Marriage should simply be a contract, plus a religious or non-religious ceremony if one wishes.

What does "banning" gay marriage even accomplish? Two people of the same sex can still draft contracts to own joint property, give each other power of attorney over health decisions, and control joint bank accounts. It's just harder to do.

Opponents of gay marriage are of the same thought as those who would enforce segregation, deny women the right to vote, and in general attempt to impose their views on others. Adam and Steve getting married does not hurt Dick and Jane, it shouldn't affect them, shouldn't be their concern, and shouldn't even be an issue to be voted on.

Dying in Oregon

Physician assisted suicide is still legal in OR .  Not Dr. Jack style, but where the doctor prescribes a life ending amount of drugs to a patient who is near death.  While I agree with the decision, I strongly question the hypocrisy of the justices, except for Clarence Thomas, who questioned it himself.  Here is a link to the full decision. 

 

It is worth reading Justice Thomas's dissent (very short, starting on page 59).  He rightfully claims that while the Court said in the Raich decision that marijuana grown and consumed in California was interstate commerce, the Court now says that prescription drugs that are used to end ones life are not.  It seems he feels that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) should apply in neither case, but he doesn't understand why the majority applies it in one and not the other. 

 

Justice Thomas's dissent is worth republishing in full (if reading court decisions isn't your thing, just read the parts I set in bold):

 

"JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

When Angel Raich and Diane Monson challenged the application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., to their purely intrastate possession of marijuana for medical use as authorized under California law, a majority of this Court (a mere seven months ago) determined that the CSA effectively invalidated California's law because "the CSA is a comprehensiveregulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. ___, ___ (2005) (slip op., at 24) (emphasis added). The majority employed unambiguous language, concluding that the "manner" in which controlled substances can be utilized "for medicinal purposes" is one of the "core activities regulated by the CSA." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25). And, it described the CSA as "creating a comprehensive framework for regulating the production, distribution, and possession of . . . 'controlled substances,' " including those substances that "'have a useful and legitimate medical purpose,' " in order to "foster the beneficial use of those medications" and "to prevent their misuse." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21).

Today the majority beats a hasty retreat from these conclusions. Confronted with a regulation that broadly requires all prescriptions to be issued for a "legitimate medical purpose," 21 CFR §1306.04(a) (2005), a regulation recognized in Raich as part of the Federal Government's"closed . . . system" for regulating the "manner" in "which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes," 545 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 10, 24), the majority rejects the Attorney General's admittedly "at least reasonable," ante, at 26, determination that administering controlled substances to facilitate a patient's death is not a " 'legitimate medical purpose.' " The majority does sobased on its conclusion that the CSA is only concerned with the regulation of "medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood." Ante, at 23. In other words, in stark contrast to Raich's broad conclusions about the scope of the CSA as it pertains to the medicinal use of controlled substances, today this Court concludes that the CSA is merely concerned with fighting " 'drug abuse' " and only insofar as that abuse leads to "addiction or abnormal effects on the nervous system." ^{1 Ante,} at 26.

The majority's newfound understanding of the CSA as astatute of limited reach is all the more puzzling because it rests upon constitutional principles that the majority ofthe Court rejected in Raich. Notwithstanding the States' " 'traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,' " 545 U. S., at ___, n. 38 (slip op., at 27, n. 38), the Raich majority concluded that the CSA applied to the intrastate possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes authorized by California law because "Congress could have rationally"concluded that such an application was necessary to the regulation of the "larger interstate marijuana market." Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 28, 30). Here, by contrast, themajority's restrictive interpretation of the CSA is based in no small part on "the structure and limitations of federalism, which allow the States ' "great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons." ' " Ante, at 23 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 475 (1996), in turn quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 756 (1985)). According to themajority, these "background principles of our federal system . . . belie the notion that Congress would use . . . an obscure grant of authority to regulate areas traditionally supervised by the States' police power." Ante, at 28.

Of course there is nothing "obscure" about the CSA's grant of authority to the Attorney General. Ante, p. ___ (SCALIA, J., dissenting). And, the Attorney General's conclusion that the CSA prohibits the States from authorizing physician assisted suicide is admittedly "at least reasonable," ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court), and is therefore entitled to deference. Ante, at 6–7 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merelythe inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence. See, e.g., Raich, supra; Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001).

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486–487 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional . . . powers . . . to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' " ^{2 Raich, supra, at ___, n. 38 (slip op., at 27, n. 38). The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich—albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation—is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. "}

 

Why can't all justices be so forthright about their opinions, and so true to the Constitution?

"You can't have New Orleans no other way"

If you read my previous post, I said that a lot of black leaders create a notion through their constituents heads that race actually matters. This is one of the chief causes of racism. Yesterday, Ray Nagin, the failed mayor of New Orleans said he wants to rebuild a "chocolate New Orleans." Now, what if the city of Des Moines got destroyed by a huge tornado and then the mayor said he wanted to rebuild a "vanilla" city. Or San Francisco finally got pummeled by an earthquake and the mayor said he wanted to rebuild a "queer city." We should condemn all of these types of statements. Shame on you Ray Nagin!

MLK Day

Martin Luther King, Jr. wished for equality of the races, and for his people to have a chance to succeed in what was certainly a white man's world-the USA in the 1960s. He advocated a non-violent approach to solving racial issues, unlike some of his contemporaries. While his people are no longer treated as second class citizens, there are still elements that divide races in America. There is racism on both sides, with some people wishing for a return to the 60s and others wishing for the former oppressive race to be repressed. Both of these streams of thought go against what MLK envisioned and what he hoped for. His dream has been tarnished by his successors, namely Jesse Jackson, who invoke race and racism to the point where an inequality is created where it does not exist. Jesse Jackson inspires black people to hate white people for crimes past, and inspires white people to hate anyone who appears to be an activist black, because all they see are people like JJ.

Affirmative action, also known as positive discrimination, further divides the races and is bad for all people. The problem if you are white is that less qualified people can be placed higher merely because of race. For blacks, you can never know if a black person attained a high position because he or she is well qualified or because they were bumped up due to AA. Statistics show that socioeconomic status and the education level of your parents determines where you end up in life much more than the color of your skin. It is true, black people tend to be more poor and less educated, but a white person in the same situation leads to almost identical results.

How can you keep MLK's dreams alive? Treat all people with respect, regardless of who they are and where they came from. Fight against racist practices, such as AA. A good way for you college types to do this is to stage an Affirmative Action Bake Sale. Click on the link and see what you think of it.

Martin Luther King Jr. was an honest man, a flawed man, but a man that helped bring an end to the institution of racism in America. His work has created opportunities for millions of people, whether or not they choose to pursue them.

A Just Execution

The case that many death penalty opponents were banking on to show that innocent people have been executed by this nation's justice system were dealt a blow, after it was revealed that DNA confirmed that Roger Coleman murdered a family member. He had professed his innocence for 10 years after the crime was committed until he was electrocuted.

I have no problem with the death penalty and actually think it should be applied in cases other than murder, such as rape (especially of children). The problem with our system is that it allows endless appeals and pleas for amnesty even when DNA firmly links one to the crime. Also, we use lethal injection which just seems too easy a way for these people to go. I prefer a good ole fashion hanging. A strong rope, a strong piece of wood, and a public audience.

Packin' in DC

Since all handguns are banned in DC, how could this have happened?  Yeah, gun control works.

Securing The Vote

Iraqi voting within our borders is being kept secure with our tax dollars. In at least two sites in Michigan and several other states, Iraqi citizens were able to cast votes for their new leaders. While it is good that the people of Iraq finally have some say in how their government will be formed, I do not feel it is appropriate for US Federal agents being present at the sites. I am not sure that having foreign voting done within the United States should be permissible outside of embassies and absentee ballots. It most likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars, on a city, state, and federal level. It also has the potential to encourage more acts of terrorism in the United States. At any rate, the Iraqis should be paying for the security.

The United States has made strides in the past few years to increase the quality of the voting process. Hanging chads might have decided an election back in 2000. We have enough problems to focus on with our own voting process than to pay for another one to take place that does not concern us.

(Thanks to Carl for the tip)

While the US government is free to give public moral support for a government, it should not give any foreign aid including security measures for a vote. This action violates our sovereignty and gives us the potential to somehow influence their vote.

You're Hired?

Not sure if anyone saw the season finale of The Apprentice tonight, but Trump's new protege sure seems to look like a sleeper asshole. Trump told Randal he was hired and then gave him the opportunity to recommend that he also hire Rebecca. Both of these players had been equally strong up to this point. Randal said that since this is the apprentice and not "apprenti" he doesn't recommend it. I bet they aren't going to be buddies in the morning...

I personally think Trump should have changed his mind and fired Randal for his serious loyalty issues, but then again, it is Trump's business.

In Atlanta, They Don't Fuck Around

The antithesis of the "good samaritan law" ?

The Idiots Who Run Public Schools

A high school student was suspended in Kansas for speaking Spanish to another student in the hallway. 

 

The principal said: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."

 

It's not like the kid answered one of his teachers in Spanish, he answered another Spanish-speaking student in Spanish.  I simply can't believe that in 2005 we have teachers telling students that they cannot converse with each other in their native language.  It's a very fascist way to run a school, kind of like the Nazis telling Jews not to speak Yiddish to each other. 

 

The public school systems in this country have many other problems, but this just underscores the poor way in which they are managed. 

New Orleans Tax Breaks

Republican lawmakers have decided to make sure that while New Orleans gets "[built] better than before," tax breaks will not cover the rebuilding of the kinds of places that give N.O. it's spirit (pun intended). 

 

First of all, I'm against government tax breaks.  OK, so I'm really against taxes too, but tax cuts aimed at a specific cause lead to many unintended consequences.  Giving you a tax break for every kid you have causes people to have more of them (it also gives you a bigger welfare check if you're part of that socioeconomic group).  Not to mention that prohibiting certain types of businesses from receiving money is discriminatory. 

 

Why should the government have to give tax cuts to rebuild New Orleans?  If it's such a great city, with a rich history and lovely people, you'd think that businesses would fighting each other to move there and open shop.  If this isn't the case, maybe New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt "better than before" as GW wants it to be.  Just because it was there doesn't mean that it needs to be there again.  Let private development choose what to build and where to build it. 

 

Besides, this law affects massage parlors and casinos.  They should just stop calling them massage parlos and call them brothels again, and that would be one very good way to rebuild New Orleans: legalize prostitution.  Something that you can't find anywhere except the desert of Nevada would be a big draw for the Big Easy.  People would come from all over, conventions would definitely pick up, and New Orleans would retain it's image. 

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Whether or not you like college football, you are paying to research it.  The government is investigating the BCS, the much maligned college football ranking system.  They are worried about fraudulent use of the system manipulating the billion dollar college football industry.  What I'm worried about is the fraudulent use of government power to manipute our daily lives...

 

 

Liberty and Security

Regarding some of the comments on the previous post, we must turn to one of our Founding Fathers, the man who graces the $100 bill, Benjamin Franklin, who so rightly stated:

"Those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty
nor security."

I would rather see multiple terrorist attacks per year, killing thousands of people, forcing the United States to rethink it's stance on my global issues than lose the liberties we have fought for as Americans for the last 250 years. The restrictions on travel and freedom that the Bush and Clinton Administrations have added in the last 10-15 years are a copout. They show that America is so stubborn, so weak to go after the terrorists in the proper way that instead they go against their own citizens. I'm sure if we rounded up and tortured enough people, we would catch a few terrorists. But what would you think if an innocent person in your family was detained and given access to no lawyers, family, or due process?

I'm sure that many of you would agree with me, you would not like to encounter checkpoints at the border with a neighboring state, or at the border with a neighboring city, where police can hound you for papers and a reason for your travels. We as Americans have the right to travel anonymously where ever we want. We have staunchly ridiculed the Soviet Union for asking every traveller "your papers please, comrade" but how far are we from this situation? Airlines are already forced to ID everyone, despite the fact that the 19 Saudis had perfectly legitimate papers and flew with their valid, government issued ID.

As for the 2nd Amendment (it was pointed out in a comment), America was built on a system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment is the citizens check against the government, which our Founding Fathers gave us. They knew what it was like for a government to amass too much control and to shit on their citizens. If this ever happened in our country again, and storm troopers were knocking at our doors, at least we wouldn't go out without a fight. Not that we are anywhere near this situation... yet.

IDs != Security

While travelling via airplanes during Thanksgiving, I had the opportunity to show my ID 4 times, twice while checking baggage and twice while going through security. While a refusal to show ID in these cases would simply lead to me being denied boarding, one woman in Denver was arrested for failing to show her ID while travelling on a public bus through a federal complex.

Having to show your ID on demand to federal agents has nothing to do with security and everything to do with government control and interference. Airlines and the TSA have no right and no legitimate reasons for seeing our IDs, if their security does a good enough job they wouldn't be needed. Bombs do get through metal detectors and x-ray machines as many drills have shown. I'm sure that among the 19 hijackers on 9/11 at least one of them purchased a ticket using his own name and showed a valid ID matching that name at the check-in counter.

The government wants to know who is travelling and where they are, and are making greater attempts everyday to create a database of our movements; whether this is feasible is another matter. There are no mandatory roadside checkpoints at state borders yet but this is something that one can easily see being in store for us in the land of the free.

Is there anything you can do to stop this? Surely there is. If you are not going to be driving a car, do not carry ID on you. Refuse to show ID when asked if it will not hinder your activities too much (when travelling via airplane, there's no way to get around the requirement). Write your congressmen and tell them that you are concerned about your privacy, and that you do not wish your government to turn into this.

Medicare Prescriptions: Bad On All Levels

The new Medicare drug benefit plan for seniors is up and running.  Apparently there are numerous choices and seniors are already getting confused .  Now, I understand that seniors are paying lots of money for drugs, but then again, their payments now go into the massive R&D costs for future medicines.  Also, the FDA prohibits them from buying drugs from Canada, Europe, and other locations where they are much cheaper (most likely due to a lack of lawsuits in those countries against pharmaceutical companies). 

 

Medicare shouldn't exist in the first place, its a socialized, inefficient, government run health care program.  It takes thousands of dollars out of your paycheck every year, and people under the age of 40 most likely won't see any benefits from it.

 

This drug plan has an estimated cost of around $1.2T, that's $1,200,000,000,000.  This is a huge entitlement, the likes of which have never been seen before in the land of the free.  We are becoming more French every day.

 

Another unintended consequence of this spending is that it may prolong the life of some seniors, causing a quicker end to Social Security and possibly wrecking the retirements of people aged 40-55.

 

We can only hope that with all the choices available, seniors will be so confused they won't sign up for the plan at all... although in that case we would probably spend even more money educating them about it.