The "imoral" majority.

I was surprised that it took so long for the far right to respond to the prop 8 decision. They have finally broken their silence it seems.
I feel the need to comment about this. It seems to me that those who come out most aggressively against same sex couples are those of questionable moral character.
John Edwards said that letting gay couples marry would cheapen marriage; he had a 19 month affair with a woman on his staff then denied that he fathered her child.
Mike Huckabee came out strongly opposed to gay marriage, he also had an affair.
This is a very small sampling, but think of the larger implication. If asked to look closely at themselves how many "anti" gay people are holding their own marriages as sacred.
The people on the far right, and even some moderates, would have you believe that it is a moral issue. They will say that same sex couples somehow cheapen the sacred act of marriage. My response to that is in two parts; one who's moral code are we talking about. For me it is far more important that two people engaging in a relationship be loyal to each other. How is a gay couple who are devoted to each other less moral than a married couple who commit adultery. The second part of my response is this; heterosexual couples are doing a mighty fine job of making marriage less sacred all on their own. The idea that something is cheapened because more people have access to it is elitist. This way of thinking is in stark contrast to what Christ taught about love.
The last thing I would like you to think about is this.
We are a nation of laws, one of those laws is the separation of church and state.
Judges make decisions based on civil law not on gods law. There are those who would have you believe that a persons civil rights should be taken away because the lifestyle they lead is in contrast to a popular religious view. That is not the case at all, the Constitution protects all U.S citizens regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All men are created equal, and should have access to all the same rights.

21 year old with CP forced to live in nursing home.

On nightly news with Brian Williams he had a story about a young woman forced to live with the elderly in a nursing home.
Haily, a 21 year old born with cerebral palsy did not have family to take care of her. So she was put into a nursing home, because the state of Georgia had cut funding that would have allowed her to live in a group home. Haily has no other disability, she is smart and could with help live a full life. When the economy goes bad it is often those who did not cause the problem who go without.
Thirty years ago Haily's story would not be noteworthy at all, back then horrid hospital like institutions were the norm. Adults and children were neglected and abused while the state paid the doctors and nursing staff twice as much as they would have had to pay to leave these people in their own homes.
The problem is corruption within the Medicaid system. States will often deny benefits for children and adults who want to live at home. They do this because they can charge Medicaid twice as much to live in a nursing home because they are paying for a full time doctor. Most people with disabilities do not require a full time doctor, they are night dying. In Haily's case her story made the paper and she was taken in by a family who may have to pay for all of her expenses on their own. The state of Georgia is threatening to take away the only insurance she can qualify for. There is a group called ADAPT fighting for legislation that would let Medicaid funds follow the person. This would mean that families and individuals could chose for themselves where they want to live.
If the Tea Party and the Republicans repeal health care stories like Haily's will become more common. With the new reforms the family that adopted Haily can add her to their insurance and pay the co pays for her equipment and medical treatment.
The disabled have been fighting since the late 60's for the right to live the lives they chose, sadly states still have the right to take that away from them.

Do second amendment rights take away first amendment rights?

Hey everyone,
This is a post not really related to anything.
There are a lot of things going on that really scare me. The political climate, specifically the Tea Party movement. Instead of spurring friendly debate this movement has spurred violence. Two security guards killed after the passage of the health care bill, all because Tea Party proponent Glenn Beck said "someone should kill Nancy Polocci."
People who wrote anything positive about health care was threatened with death.
Then the supreme court says that states cannot place restrictions on gun ownership. That may not seem like a big deal, but look at the effects. People now carry guns everywhere so you never know if by saying something you could wind up shot.
That is the reason for my question, if anyone can carry and brandish their weapon anywhere they want, where does that leave me?
Example, say I am at a store and someone cuts in front of me; I can no longer say "screw you man" because he could pull a weapon.
Think about public demonstrations, where does the peaceful protester go when everyone has a gun?
Then you have people like Sharon Angle asking for revolution. She has said that if you disagree with government you should use "second amendment solutions".
The first amendment is in danger of being lost because so many people feel the need to take guns everywhere with them.
Now before you think I am being paranoid think about this; in Utah you can wave your gun around if you "feel" in danger. The law also allows you to kill the other person if it is "self defense" If you kill the other guy there is nobody to speak against you. So in a way this law simply encourages people to become better marksman.
The truth is we as a nation need to stop listening to the hype and inflammatory language of those who get paid for shock and awe. We need to read, speak civilly and learn to see another point of view.

The disaster that is Glenn Beck

When I started this blog, a few weeks ago, I had the intention of writing about public policy and Beck. Well, I watched GB for a few weeks and sometimes he was coherent enough to critique. Last night and this afternoon he was just nuts.
Wednesday August 4TH
He began the program comparing Obama to Satan, yeah. Then he moved on to ranting about the progressive movement and how we needed term limits in the senate. Term limits by the way an idea that came during the progressive era.
Then he called our president ignorant, racist, a terrorist, and said that we were all in danger. Okay, my favorite (and by that I mean the part that I actually cried in horror) He said that we needed "peace" Apparently Glenn Beck feels that using incendiary language is okay if he tells people not to use violence when fighting our "terrorist" government.
Look he spent the whole show in a sort of vaudevillian act, complete with funny voices and props. Then he got offended when someone called him an "entertainer".
Thursday August 5TH
Today he began where he left off yesterday, calling our government terrorists.
Today he was a little more rational, his screaming rants seem to have a point today. So because he made actual statements that I can talk about, I will.
He talked about the white house plan to save teaching jobs, he thinks it's bad. Then he ranted about cities who have cut teaching jobs due to the budget. According to Beck these teaching jobs are being lost because of the governments plan to save them. Also yesterday was a monumental day for civil rights activists, it was also a good day for the gulf of Mexico. Glenn Beck was just furious that the news media covered these stories. Why is that, well because Missouri had a vote about one of the provisions in the health care bill, that wont effect them until 2014. That is bigger news I guess.
He then chose six cities to use as examples of wasteful spending. The waste all things hat have to do with culture and education. He was critical of cities that have had to trim back their police forces, but still had money for other projects.
What Beck is not understanding is that in a city or state money is set aside for very specific uses, you can't just rob Peter to pay Paul. What he is also ignorant of is that most city beautification projects were funded years before they are finished.
Yesterday he said it was stupid for stimulus money to go to a museum, because we all know that knowledge is over rated.
I am not giving up on this project, I feel it is important but for the sake of my sanity I will not watch Glenn Beck anymore.
I challenge those who do watch him, count how many inflammatory statements he uses against the government and tell me if it makes you feel peaceful.
If Glenn Beck were able to speak in a coherent fashion I wouldn't be so frustrated.
I will still talk about him of course, I just will not lower my humanity to watch him any more.

Victory agianst prop 8

In California in 2008 civil rights were put on the ballot. This should have never happened, you cannot let people decide who deserves civil rights and who does not. Today a federal judge said the same thing. When the lawyers who were supporting prop 8 were asked what harm same sex marriage would cause they could come up with no answer.
Orin Hatch said that today's decision was sad, that it was wrong to "make up " rights found in the constitution. I hate to break it to Sen. Hatch but the right to life liberty and happiness is granted to all of mankind.
I am very happy to see this offensive proposition struck down, I was saddened by the LDS churches involvement in passing a law that does nothing but spread intolerance.
Civil rights decisions need to be made inside government bodies, not left up to the people. If the Americans with disabilities act had been a ballot measure it never would have passed.
The fact is, even though the fight for gay rights is not yet over it soon will be. Conservatives fought against woman's rights and they fought against ending segregation. We will win this fight and leave those full of ignorance and hate in the dust.

So much for the constitution

A growing group of Republican senators, some with Tea Party ties, are abandoning their unflappable devotion to the founding fathers. See, the Tea party and some right wing Republicans talk a good game about getting back to the constitution. As if we have left it! Now however they are proposing to get rid of the 14Th amendment. For those who may not remember that's the one that grants citizenship to children born in the U,S.
These senators believe that doing this will stem the "tide" of illegal immigrants.
Okay, so the thinking is that the founding fathers were infallible, except for this one time. They talk a great game about venerating the founding fathers, to the point of deification at times. Yet they don't see any conflict in their belief system when talking about tearing out parts of the constitution when it doesn't suit their re-election campaign.
Now for the problem that repealing the 14TH amendment would cause. If a couple come legally to America and are working on getting citizenship and while waiting they have a child, what would become of that child? Would they have to file all the paperwork for that child to gain legal status?
One thing that I have learned about any public policy, it is that there are always financial costs. For example would that child no longer qualify for their parents insurance? This would cause huge expenses to be incurred by the states.
There are also unintended social affects. If we make it even more expensive to come here legally, what would be the incentive for doing so?
Without this amendment in place, every person who is here with a work or student visa would have to pay extra for their children s citizenship
Besides being morally offensive and lacking in the very concept of this country; this idea is fiscally and socially irresponsible. An amendment of this type would cost this country billions of dollars to try for. If it actually succeed it would cost us more money in the implementation. It would require a new government body that would have to deal with these children. This would mean more regulation and bigger government. That is something that Republicans and the Tea Party claim they are against.
I know immigration is a hot topic right now, but you as citizens need to think about the consequences of rash reactionary action.
Our country has a history of rash action, and it has never ended well. Remember the internment camps for the Japanese? Or the red scare culminating in the McCarthy hearings? Politics, and policy when done right is a deliberate proses, not a rash one.

Obama on "the view"

Okay, at first I thought it was a bit silly for the president to go on "the view". Then I started hearing the right wing criticism and just what a huge deal they were making out of it. First of all this is the information age, that is why we here more from our political leaders than we used to. If Obama refused to go on television he would be seen as out dated and lame.
So the right wing media are mad that he didn't go speak to boy scouts. Wait a minute, are not these the same people who criticized the president for speaking to kids last school year? Are not these the same people who think he is a : Marxist, capitalist, socialist terrorist? You would think that the people at Fox news would be grateful that this evil white man hating foreign demon isn't speaking to young children. After all he might try to turn them to his dark side of Marxist communist socialist race war government policy.
Give me a break, you can't have it both ways folks either he's the spawn of the devil, or a respected leader.
If he had spoken to the boy scouts these Fox news blowhards would have found fault with that as well.