While it is true that conservative views are keeping certain rights from being "legally-given" to gays and lesbians, there are two causes to this problem that are keeping the dream from happening. First of all the conservative view of politicians and lawmakers is preventing them from making the right judgment. Moreover, the conservative views of the said politician's supporters is keeping these rights to be given to gays and lesbians.
My view is since the Constitution allows marriage between straights, or to be more specific straight citizens, then it should also pass the same laws to its gay and lesbian citizens.
Anyways the principle behind this problem is that these people's conservative view is the essential source of problem. Therefore it is logical to remove the biased view, or to at least come to a compromise. Religion states marriage is set for man and woman, and modern interpretations have set this belief in stone. For most anti-gay rights, their main problem is that allowing gay marriage is a blaspheme in the eyes of the Lord. However this group, by not allowing gay marriage is essentially putting the gays under rule of majority (although it isn't true that anti-gay is the majority among Americans, anti-gay is the majority among politicians), surely something that the Lord did not wish for. While going against what is "laid as a foundation" by god can seem incriminating, everyone deserves to choose whether they will follow said foundation or do what will really make them happy.
Ethical reasoning aside, there has already been established a separation of church and state by the first Amendment. Therefore anti-gays need to come up with a better argument than God doesn't want it or it makes me squeamish and stop hampering what is right.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Health Insurance and how to milk a fat unwary cow...
After recently graduating and moving out of my parent's house I have come to appreciate my 18 years of free-money like never before. Having to work for the money to pay bills, while necessary is straining on a young man's budget. Of course I (and every other working person) would like to cut down on these bills, and have some more money left over. For example, when do you apply for health insurance? Is it more useful to a young man or an older man? Who knows, when you're going to get sick, or when you will get into a situation that will debilitate your body? So logically it is a necessity for EVERY SINGLE PERSON to have a backup plan for these possibly unforeseen instances...... right?
Well here's a two page horror story of several people who have been (nearly) handicapped by cancer, lymphoma and other unmentioned diseases who are not getting their claim. It hardly seems fair to pay an invisible bodyguard a sum of money month after month and not receive any money. The tactic the disabled say the insurance companies (the company in question is called Cigna) are using is called slow-walking. The companies keep denying you until you crumble from the pressure and stop pursuing your money.
Frankly this is a violation as deep as a doctor betraying their patient. A doctor works to save the lives of his patient, in a similar theory an insurance company works to get money to it's injured. If a doctor killing his patient from malpractice is unconstitutional, then why should the insurance company's betrayal be any different.
Of course the company's defense is that thousands of it's buyers try to corrupt the system by faking a disability claim. Perhaps that is true but that is no reason to deny people fuck with people who make their monthly payments on time and are really injured. The linked articles discusses a disabled Bob Eklund who is disabled from another unmentioned disease. Eklund says he has literally a mountain of evidence showing his disability, yet every time Cigna denies that he is disabled.
While the heinous crimes that Cigna commits to their ex-customers are in fact henious, the writer of that article commits a greater and far worse crime in re-writing the story. That one story has been circulating the major news websites (CNN, NBC, ABC etc.) for a few hours before the writer of posted his own article. Furthermore, he brings nothing new to the story, just the same salted injustice that his "interviewed" are getting screwed by Cigna.
Well here's a two page horror story of several people who have been (nearly) handicapped by cancer, lymphoma and other unmentioned diseases who are not getting their claim. It hardly seems fair to pay an invisible bodyguard a sum of money month after month and not receive any money. The tactic the disabled say the insurance companies (the company in question is called Cigna) are using is called slow-walking. The companies keep denying you until you crumble from the pressure and stop pursuing your money.
Frankly this is a violation as deep as a doctor betraying their patient. A doctor works to save the lives of his patient, in a similar theory an insurance company works to get money to it's injured. If a doctor killing his patient from malpractice is unconstitutional, then why should the insurance company's betrayal be any different.
Of course the company's defense is that thousands of it's buyers try to corrupt the system by faking a disability claim. Perhaps that is true but that is no reason to deny people fuck with people who make their monthly payments on time and are really injured. The linked articles discusses a disabled Bob Eklund who is disabled from another unmentioned disease. Eklund says he has literally a mountain of evidence showing his disability, yet every time Cigna denies that he is disabled.
While the heinous crimes that Cigna commits to their ex-customers are in fact henious, the writer of that article commits a greater and far worse crime in re-writing the story. That one story has been circulating the major news websites (CNN, NBC, ABC etc.) for a few hours before the writer of posted his own article. Furthermore, he brings nothing new to the story, just the same salted injustice that his "interviewed" are getting screwed by Cigna.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Death penalty, who gets it and who doesn't.
Some time in 1998, New Orleans police department received a call from a Patrick O. Kennedy that his 8-year old step-daughter had just been raped. He described the attackers as two boys who got away on bikes. However, the police soon discovered that O. Kennedy had raped the girl himself, told her to lie to the police, and called for a carpet cleaner to clean the blood off the floor before calling the police.
Ten years later the case is finally brought up to the eyes of the Supreme Court, and the nine reached a 5-4 verdict that Patrick O. Kennedy will not receive the death penalty for child rape. O. Kennedy was initially set for the death penalty as per Louisiana law, but he and his lawyer argued that the law on death for child rape violates the cruel and unusual punishment ban of the Constitution. The defense garnered data, when they presented that only 0.0601% of the people on death row did not actually commit a murder.
While the defense's argument is solid politically, it is severely lacking in morality. The majority justice was represented by Anthony Kennedy who commented that, while it is true Kennedy did rape the girl he did not kill the girl and so it would be unconstitutional to kill him. Kennedy committed an act that is vilified and for most people straight out of a horror story. Rape victims are usually traumatized, but children who are raped almost never recover from completely from that instance.
It is an ugly thing to say but I am personally split down the middle as what to do with Kennedy. A part of me wants to say that the man fully deserves the death penalty, for destroying much of a young girl's life. But, another part of me feels sorry for the girl, because she was betrayed in a horrifying way by one of the people she thought she could trust. Letting him die would be a devastating experience, because (technically speaking) Patrick O. Kennedy is still the closest thing to a father the girl has had.
Ten years from that incident, the girl has become a young woman of 18 years. While no sites have any report of her side of the story, it is unfair and foolish to assume that she has forgiven O. Kennedy. Thus I want to say that the Supreme Court is right to not compound the death penalty into such a delicate situation.
On the other hand, this case itself brings new light into a strategy that rape committing defenders can use. There are only five states in the U.S. that demand a death penalty for child rape, but even Texas's strict system can be stalled with a good lawyer and references to this case. When will the Justices decide that a death penalty is deserving for a rapist? If it isn't for desecrating an eight year old, then I would very much like to hear their opinion.
Ten years later the case is finally brought up to the eyes of the Supreme Court, and the nine reached a 5-4 verdict that Patrick O. Kennedy will not receive the death penalty for child rape. O. Kennedy was initially set for the death penalty as per Louisiana law, but he and his lawyer argued that the law on death for child rape violates the cruel and unusual punishment ban of the Constitution. The defense garnered data, when they presented that only 0.0601% of the people on death row did not actually commit a murder.
While the defense's argument is solid politically, it is severely lacking in morality. The majority justice was represented by Anthony Kennedy who commented that, while it is true Kennedy did rape the girl he did not kill the girl and so it would be unconstitutional to kill him. Kennedy committed an act that is vilified and for most people straight out of a horror story. Rape victims are usually traumatized, but children who are raped almost never recover from completely from that instance.
It is an ugly thing to say but I am personally split down the middle as what to do with Kennedy. A part of me wants to say that the man fully deserves the death penalty, for destroying much of a young girl's life. But, another part of me feels sorry for the girl, because she was betrayed in a horrifying way by one of the people she thought she could trust. Letting him die would be a devastating experience, because (technically speaking) Patrick O. Kennedy is still the closest thing to a father the girl has had.
Ten years from that incident, the girl has become a young woman of 18 years. While no sites have any report of her side of the story, it is unfair and foolish to assume that she has forgiven O. Kennedy. Thus I want to say that the Supreme Court is right to not compound the death penalty into such a delicate situation.
On the other hand, this case itself brings new light into a strategy that rape committing defenders can use. There are only five states in the U.S. that demand a death penalty for child rape, but even Texas's strict system can be stalled with a good lawyer and references to this case. When will the Justices decide that a death penalty is deserving for a rapist? If it isn't for desecrating an eight year old, then I would very much like to hear their opinion.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Classmates Responses....
The following is a comment response to Best Intention's: Characters we love to Hate.
I agree with both of you that these pundits do use their shows/books/radio and power to sell their opinion and I also agree that something needs to be done about it, but is it really that big of a deal?
We know about Rush Limbaugh and the help he provided to the Republican Party's domination of the Senate and the House. We know that the electronic precinct captain, took potshots at the Democratic campaign and specifically the Clinton presidency. It is surmised that his radio show helped a great deal to idolize the Republican party in the eyes (or perhaps ears) of the show's listeners, and so he played a direct role in the Republican domination of 1994. In fact the only reason that the Republicans got the majority in both houses was due to the failure of the Clinton health plan, which contradicting the then current sayings of Limbaugh and his fellows is a big deal now.
This isn't to say that Coulter and O'Reilly haven't been playing the faux-guru game on their own. Whereas Limbaugh was the radio-lord of his time, O'Reilly is the asshole-reporter during ours. Every episode ends the same with O'Reilly and his lapdog (sometimes dogs) yelling down the opposer trying to get their point across. Maybe the show appeals to those without a back-bone unable to stand up for themselves, but all O'Reilly does is employ the same smear tactics that Limbaugh used during his time. Sadly for O'Reilly the majority of the country is against his party's ideals so he won't be getting the "television precinct captain" title yet, but given the country's shift in ideals on every election year he'll probably get it after the 2012 presidential election.
So far I've just bashed the Republican-side of the smear shows, let's get to the Democratic side. Let's see ABC evening nope, Good Morning America wtf. kind of list is this ahh here we go Jon Stewart's Daily Show. While not on the same level of douchebagg-ery as O'Reilly Stewart does employ satire and comedy in his Daily humiliation of the Republican party's antics. I guess you reap what you sow, although if you've sown the Daily Show ... we'll that's just funny.
Perhaps my leftist, liberal Jekkyl is slowly bleeding into my typing but I've got a precious forty minutes left before my 12:00 o'clock deadline and given I am literally using a modern typer-writer to submit this assignment I'll finish here.
My main points were that yes slammer shows really blur the line between good news and an hour of slamming the other party, but still given this hindrance it is the duty of well-informed and capable citizens to find alternate sources to gather their "news" from.
I agree with both of you that these pundits do use their shows/books/radio and power to sell their opinion and I also agree that something needs to be done about it, but is it really that big of a deal?
We know about Rush Limbaugh and the help he provided to the Republican Party's domination of the Senate and the House. We know that the electronic precinct captain, took potshots at the Democratic campaign and specifically the Clinton presidency. It is surmised that his radio show helped a great deal to idolize the Republican party in the eyes (or perhaps ears) of the show's listeners, and so he played a direct role in the Republican domination of 1994. In fact the only reason that the Republicans got the majority in both houses was due to the failure of the Clinton health plan, which contradicting the then current sayings of Limbaugh and his fellows is a big deal now.
This isn't to say that Coulter and O'Reilly haven't been playing the faux-guru game on their own. Whereas Limbaugh was the radio-lord of his time, O'Reilly is the asshole-reporter during ours. Every episode ends the same with O'Reilly and his lapdog (sometimes dogs) yelling down the opposer trying to get their point across. Maybe the show appeals to those without a back-bone unable to stand up for themselves, but all O'Reilly does is employ the same smear tactics that Limbaugh used during his time. Sadly for O'Reilly the majority of the country is against his party's ideals so he won't be getting the "television precinct captain" title yet, but given the country's shift in ideals on every election year he'll probably get it after the 2012 presidential election.
So far I've just bashed the Republican-side of the smear shows, let's get to the Democratic side. Let's see ABC evening nope, Good Morning America wtf. kind of list is this ahh here we go Jon Stewart's Daily Show. While not on the same level of douchebagg-ery as O'Reilly Stewart does employ satire and comedy in his Daily humiliation of the Republican party's antics. I guess you reap what you sow, although if you've sown the Daily Show ... we'll that's just funny.
Perhaps my leftist, liberal Jekkyl is slowly bleeding into my typing but I've got a precious forty minutes left before my 12:00 o'clock deadline and given I am literally using a modern typer-writer to submit this assignment I'll finish here.
My main points were that yes slammer shows really blur the line between good news and an hour of slamming the other party, but still given this hindrance it is the duty of well-informed and capable citizens to find alternate sources to gather their "news" from.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
how far will you go?
To retrieve potentially vital information for your country. There have been hundreds of online articles criticizing the military for going too far with torture to extract information from p.o.w.s. Now I don't normally advocate violence , but if it is going to be used as a tool to protect citizens from potential harm then I'm all for it. However, since giving such a volatile power to such a group will inevitably cause problems, it will be best to temporarily assign the power to certain branches of the military. The reason for the temporary advocacy is so that those tortured will not be as scarred as the current prisoners at Guantanamo and other jails claim to be.
From simple books like Lord of the Flies to the complicated experiments drawn out by Stanford, we have past experiences of how badly these powers are exploited and the degree to which the power will mutilate the torturer and the tortured. We know that within days those with power will corrupt, and so lies the basis for removal of this unnecessarily long ability to torture prisoners. If we are to debase ourselves by letting our primal emotions rule us, then how can we expect our foes to be any different.
Finally the big question is are there any viable alternatives to such a brutal method of "persuasion". Many times narcotics and hallucinogens have been brought up, and many times those ideas have been repealed on grounds that the drugs cause more psychological harm than torture does. And who is to argue, after all if there is one field that lacks tangible researchable evidence it is the effects (long term and psychological) that drugs can have on people!
From simple books like Lord of the Flies to the complicated experiments drawn out by Stanford, we have past experiences of how badly these powers are exploited and the degree to which the power will mutilate the torturer and the tortured. We know that within days those with power will corrupt, and so lies the basis for removal of this unnecessarily long ability to torture prisoners. If we are to debase ourselves by letting our primal emotions rule us, then how can we expect our foes to be any different.
Finally the big question is are there any viable alternatives to such a brutal method of "persuasion". Many times narcotics and hallucinogens have been brought up, and many times those ideas have been repealed on grounds that the drugs cause more psychological harm than torture does. And who is to argue, after all if there is one field that lacks tangible researchable evidence it is the effects (long term and psychological) that drugs can have on people!
Friday, June 13, 2008
New players old tactics
Though both Obama and McCain state that they are new players who will avoid the old styles of politics, both seem engaged in an internet feud currently. After withstanding criticism from the McCain campaign for being "unfounded" and producing "potentially damaging reports", the Obama campaign has debuted a new website to slurr the credibility of the McCain campaign.
Though this is neither a new nor groundbreaking, the fact that both men have already forgone their previous promises to avoid dirty playing has caused internet critics to raise an eyebrow. Logically, if one is to botch one's promises now who knows what will be done later.
However, never fear Obama fanboys (and fangirls) the intention of the website is not to harm the credibility of the McCain campaign, suggests spokesman Tommy Vietor, it is to merely prove wrong the lies spread by the McCain campaign. Make of that what you will.
For any readers who wish to see the Obama website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
It quite literally destroys the arguments proposed by the McCain campaign. Given both sides induction into dirty play, we will have to wait and see how the McCain campaign will respond. Logic dictates that they will probably be angry for being called liars, BUT I've been wrong before.
Though this is neither a new nor groundbreaking, the fact that both men have already forgone their previous promises to avoid dirty playing has caused internet critics to raise an eyebrow. Logically, if one is to botch one's promises now who knows what will be done later.
However, never fear Obama fanboys (and fangirls) the intention of the website is not to harm the credibility of the McCain campaign, suggests spokesman Tommy Vietor, it is to merely prove wrong the lies spread by the McCain campaign. Make of that what you will.
For any readers who wish to see the Obama website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
It quite literally destroys the arguments proposed by the McCain campaign. Given both sides induction into dirty play, we will have to wait and see how the McCain campaign will respond. Logic dictates that they will probably be angry for being called liars, BUT I've been wrong before.
Monday, June 9, 2008
A late farewell to a worthy candidate.
As we all know by now Hillary Clinton has chosen to drop out of the democratic nomination for presidency. What is unclear is why she chose to drop out at such a point in the nomination? From this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/us/politics/10clinton.html) I gather that her campaign has generated a hefty debt (the largest in the history of presidential campaigns) and to continue on would just invite more indebted money.
While it is true that Hillary Clinton has dropped out of the presidential race, it is still quite possible that she will end up as Obama's vice president. Many bloggers have started hopeful predictions that she will in fact end up as Obama's vice president. Clinton or her close supporters have yet to disclose whether they will start a run for the vice-presidency. However, common sense says starting a new campaign will likely add to her accumulated debt.
Whether she ends up in the White House with the Obamas, or not, there is a huge thanks and credit that needs to be given to Mrs. Clinton. First off (and most obviously) she is the first female candidate to be considered for the presidency. She has paved a new, yet devastatingly important trail for future aspirants to take up. Secondly, she shares a common interest with Obama on the topics of the War at Iraq, education, the economy and foreign policy. Though she is out of the race, expect to see some of her ideas flow into the Democratic Party's plan of action.
While it is true that Hillary Clinton has dropped out of the presidential race, it is still quite possible that she will end up as Obama's vice president. Many bloggers have started hopeful predictions that she will in fact end up as Obama's vice president. Clinton or her close supporters have yet to disclose whether they will start a run for the vice-presidency. However, common sense says starting a new campaign will likely add to her accumulated debt.
Whether she ends up in the White House with the Obamas, or not, there is a huge thanks and credit that needs to be given to Mrs. Clinton. First off (and most obviously) she is the first female candidate to be considered for the presidency. She has paved a new, yet devastatingly important trail for future aspirants to take up. Secondly, she shares a common interest with Obama on the topics of the War at Iraq, education, the economy and foreign policy. Though she is out of the race, expect to see some of her ideas flow into the Democratic Party's plan of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)