Response to Mr. Griffith's "The Government's Response to Sexuality in America"

     Yet another drawback to the distinct lack of all speed and intent our Government is famous for. Democracy in the U.S. takes a very long time to identify and impliment changes. Longer in fact than our social or even technological rate of change. This is especially evident in the current debate over sexual education and reproductive rights. It is no secret that many feel as if the United States priorities are a bit skewed. In Europe for instance, sex is not NEARLY as censored within the media, as nudity and depictions of sexual relations are approached with a mature level head from the get go. Now violence in the media within Europe, that is the stuff that gets censored or outright banned. The United States takes almost the exact opposite approach. 

     Mr. Griffith is absolutely correct, how can we expect America's youth to make educated decisions about their bodies when they have not been educated? I myself have a 14 year old half-sister who is currently pregnant. While I do not place the blame of which squarely upon the shoulders of our government, as it was her decision, I do blame our current culture of sexual stigmata. Everywhere you look, sex is being used to sell. The Disney channel is one of the worse offenders. Lets dwell on that a moment... the DISNEY CHANNEL. The cable channel solely responsible for the entertainment of our youth, is sexual-izing their own young stars and starlets, creating some of the worse role models in the history of the world. Beiber? Cyrus? Professor Farnsworth said it best, "I don't want to live on this planet anymomre". 

The Cost of Anonymity

Only one thing he can be doing with a laptop whilst licking his lips...

News of the NSA's numerous exploits have reached every corner of the globe by now, and it is very evident that the United States' reach is indeed global and all inclusive. So far is seems as if no one is being spared scrutiny under this new regime of data collection and information overload. Politically inclined nationals, buzz-word toting house wives, big business leaders and anyone else who over the course of a few years googled the wrong series of letters. It matters little when we are told "limited information is being gathered" or even "you have nothing to be afraid of if you have nothing to hide". The fact of the matter is, that our rights to privacy are slowly but surely being chipped away at. What is the next step? How much longer before the very act of attempting to stay anonymous online in turn makes you a target in the eyes of our very government? I have a sick, inkling feeling in the pit of my stomach that a few years down the road, maybe 10, maybe 20, that going into "incognito mode" or using a proxy server to surf the web will be the same as admission of guilt in the eyes of the NSA. "What is he doing? Why doesn't he want people to know?".

This becomes you as soon as you want to keep your privacy.

Moreover, while I personally have nothing to hide, I find it very distressing to know that regardless of my activity online and on the phone, information on me is being collected. And not just collected, but stored, mined, queried, cross matched and verified all before being cataloged. It is certainly not comforting to know that despite having never committed a crime, I already have a record. Who is to say that information collected on me cannot be used against me at a later date? Who is to say that this very blog post, as innocent as it may be (I just want my A in this class), will not be held against me years from now. "He conspired against the security of our great nation" they may say, while I stand, accused, in front of all the world to see. What are the alternatives? A dystopian future where identities are more closely guarded than anything else? And how long before your attempts at keeping your private affairs private in fact draw the attention and gaze of the ever vigilant Agency?

It's not that simple, though I wish it were.

Not pictured: the fat spliff under the cops hat

In response to Mr. Eddie Valle's "Marijuana and Alcohol", while I agree wholeheartedly that the legalization of a certain green, leafy substance, especially when compared to other currently legal recreational intoxicants, should be a no-brain-er. Unfortunately, the issue is much, much more complicated than simply legalization and taxation of said substance. We have no way of testing for marijuana "intoxication" levels (example: You cannot be over X% high and be behind the wheel). Basically, reform in the area of recreational drug use would have to be accompanied by reform in other numerous institutions. Hiring companies across the U.S. would have to adopt a more lenient approach to the hiring process, as they certainly could not be expected to discriminate against marijuana users. Can you imagine answering yes or no to "Do you imbibe in any way, shape, or form Marijuana or any of its derivatives?" on a job application? I certainly could not. Answering a questions like that geared towards alcohol is illegal. Provided you do nothing to introduce alcohol into your own work environment, your work/management has no right to know what you do on your own time. While the disparity between damage done through Alcohol vs. Marijuana is without question, the age-old arguments for marijuana legalization have not worked historically because they do little to answer the more important issues of implementation. I have no doubt that the U.S. will get there, in time. Hell, when it does happen, it may just be the political re-alignment everyone's been waiting for.

Congress overpaid, under-worked.

Where fortunes er... Laws are made

There is a closely guarded "secret" in D.C., one that is no surprise at all to those who work, eat and sleep around congress, but for most of us would be considered exceptionally illegal, immoral and downright dirty. We all know about campaign funds, about how, if you really agreed with a candidates stance and wanted to show your support for said candidate, you are able to send campaign contributions to help spread the word. And, like I, you would expect that your campaign contributions would be put towards, say, the campaign. The good news, is that a lot of it does. The bad news, is that a lot of it goes straight into the pockets of campaigners, their campaign staff and their families under the guise of being "work related". This is illegal right? Wrong. It seems as if campaign contributions have become less about winning elections and more about securing a nice little lifestyle subsidy. "Thinking about hiring someone onto your campaign crew? Whats that? He is only available to be spoken with at a five star resort in Scotland because of an upcoming wedding? That's OK, since I am thinking of hiring him, I will just use my campaign funds to take my entire family and posse to go out there, stay a week or so, talk it over over a few rounds of expensive golf and then make my decision."

Laughing all the way to the Bank

OK, surely this extravagant and flagrant misuse of appropriated funds ends once said candidate has been elected into congress, right? Wrong again. Welcome to the world of "Leadership Pacs", where the gains are high and the penalties are low. Leadership Pacs are a fundraising method in order to raise money for other peoples campaigns. "No no no, this isn't my money, its money for Joe Crook! So I can use it however I want for Joe, as long as he is not using it for himself." Sounds shady huh? What is even more concerning is that this is not a naturally occurring loophole, ready for fixing. This Leadership Pac system was put into place, and then summarily exploited, and continues to be exploited despite the fact that everyone in Washington knows about them. That is just the tip of the iceberg. One congresswoman Napolitano decided that her campaign fund was looking a little low, so she loaned her own campaign some money. No harm in that I guess right? Well, it wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that she charged interest to the tune of 16%. Wonderful little loophole there. Her rational was that because she was a woman of Latino descent, the "banks" would not give her the loan for her campaign.

The current average on-the-books salary for a rank and file congressman/woman is roughly $174,000 per year, not counting shady dealings like the ones mentioned above. I find it very hard to believe that our lawmakers can honestly pass laws and implement policy without personal interest and with the benefit of the people in mind, when lining their own pockets takes priority.

Texas Voter Suppression Law Takes Effect Today

Look at all those non-voters (The Pubs)

Ian Millhiser over at Thinkprogress.org wrote earlier today that a Texas voter "suppression" law will take effect today, despite the effects it may have on minority voters. Thinkprogress is a liberal blog, and this article definitely strikes me as being properly geared toward the proper audience. After looking into Mr. Ian Millhiser's credentials, it is plainly clear that this man knows what he is talking about. 

Backers of other Voter ID initiatives have usually claimed that laws like these are needed in order to prevent voter fraud once polls go live, "but such fraud is only slightly more common than dragons and wizards." (Millhiser). Despite the fact that voter fraud is not even remotely relevant in most states, it is estimated that this new law will effect 2-3% of registered voters (from the pool of guys and gals who actually can vote, as opposed felons who voted, not aware that they are ineligible). 

A large portion of the 2-3% effected include students and other low-income voters, "all of which are groups that tend to be to the left of the electorate as a whole" (Millhiser). Moreover, this new law effects women (as much as 66% of women) in an adverse way as well, as law requires current legal identification (and a vast majority of married women who have changed their name do not have the necessary ID requirements in order to vote).  

I agree with Mr. Millhiser wholeheartedly for bringing this issue to light, especially since it effects myself as well. 

"The Republic Shutdown"

David Jackson over at USA Today wrote a piece on October 1st entitled Obama to Republicans: Reopen the Government. While found in the editorial/opinion section of the website, I found very little of this articles content to be anything opinion based. Most of the article is directly quoted material and facts that can be found and verified throughout the web. Some of the directly quoted material reveals the opinions of the parties and persons involved, such as Obama referring to the shutdown as "The Republican Shutdown" (although, really, that is exactly what it is). Mr. Jackson is also careful to represent both sides of the argument. While his candor is appreciated, this is supposed to be an opinion piece, and I am sensing a distinct lack of bias. 

"Its because I am black, isn't it?" ~ Not Obama

The article feels like a summary of President Obama's plea to the GOP to re-open the government, and less like a supportive argument or even a criticism. There is far more in this article that is stated very 'matter o' fact-ly' than there should be for an editorial. To add icing to the not so opinionated cake, there was no clear discernible goal or message of the article, the author did not seem to want to get any real point across to his readers, merely to keep them in the fog of impartiality. Is this really and truly an opinion article? I do not believe so. Is it informative? Genuinely so, but it lacks opinion driven direction. 

The 'Let them starve' Bill

According to the BBC's article "US lawmakers vote to cut food stamp benefits from 2014", US lawmakers have just recently passed a bill that would trim the fat on our current food stamp program, amounting to about 5% of the program being cut starting next year. This amounts to about $4 Billion per year. All of this after being told by the White House that the bill would be vetoed. Why is this worth reading? Because it is interesting to see exactly how far removed some of our leadership seems to be from the situation, and how that can effect decision making and policy. Now, it is real easy to look at the title of this article and think that US Lawmakers genuinely do not care about citizens in need of government assistance, but I assure you, this is not the case. The budget aims to save that 5% by allowing states to impose work requirements (for those who are capable of work, obviously) and test applicants for drug use. In addition to this, it would end benefits for able bodies adults without dependents who for some reason receive benefits indefinitely at present.

Pictured left to right: Gucci Sunglasses, food, gullible President 

The White House's response was to threaten to veto, stating that this broad stroke would affect an even broader demographic. with the Congressional Budget Office stating that if the bill were passed "up to 3.8 million people could lose their benefits next year". But is this really such a bad thing? According to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), "the food program bill has tripled since 2004 and cost about $78 Billion last year". So, in essence we are trying to drop that down to $74 Billion in spending, and as a direct result everyone is going to starve? I call shenanigans. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, one of the driving forces in this push for food stamp budget cuts has said it was "wrong for working, middle-class people to pay" for the abuse of the program. After reading exactly how the budget aims to save this 5%, it seems to me that the only people who need to worry are those that are currently abusing the program.