The same thing?

One of my friends posted a story attempting to justify the Republican position on the economy. I'll paste the story below, followed by my reply.

---------

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.


Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.


Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.


Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'


Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.


'The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.She played while I worked my tail off!'The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'


If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

---------


My response:


The difference between something like balancing GPA and the economy is that the wealthy control the means of production. Much of the work the working-class produces is beneficial moreso to the upper class than it is to themselves. Something like the 20, maybe less than that, wealthiest people in the world have more money than everybody else combined. Though in theory this analogy is similar, it would have to take into consideration that the 4.0 girl is in control of the system which distributes each individuals' capacity to earn grades, and that a 2.0 student's labors, even if they're minimal, had only an effect on herself.


Granted, in this specific case, the 2.0 student earned crappy grades by her own accord. But in many cases, smart people who do study hard and do the best they can still earn drastically lower grades than others. This analogy doesn't take that sort of scenario into consideration. Likewise, there are many who work long and work hard, and still are well below the poverty line. Minimum wage itself doesn't allocate an individual to make enough money to be above the poverty line for a working-class family of 4. Those that dictate minimum wage, those in power (all WEALTHY) are the ones that designate these numbers. Redistributing wealth is thus unfavorable because it breeds the potential for a more even playing field, and thus for them, a potential lessening of power. If this weren't the case, they wouldn't have a problem merely upping minimum wage, which wouldn't require any specific sacrificing of their own, be it earned, wealth.


It seems unfair to make the assumption that all lower-class citizens are there by choice, or laziness, as is presented in the story.

"The innocent are sometimes slain to make way for grander schemes."

Okay, here is something, finally, not pertaining to gay marriage (and, written solely by me!) Though, it does briefly mention sexual orientation, and is about sexuality in a general sense (yes, I'm quite the sex fiend ... politically speaking). I touch upon many points I've touched upon already, but I'm going to touch upon them again. Contextual note: I wrote this to a friend of mine who is in Japan back when Jamie Lynn had just announced her pregnancy and it was everywhere, so it's a little outdated. But my feelings remain the same. I added a lot to it as well.


I'm not sure how big this is in Japan, but the top story, basically in general, here in the US (because apparently this is the most potent issue the country needs to worry about, really, it was the top story on CNN for a while) is that Britney Spears's 16-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn, is pregnant. Britney's basically top news here all the time, just because she became a total nut.


This situation pisses me off; I was going to say a little, but that would be a lie. It pisses me off a lot. Regardless of Britney, which is the only reason this situation, Jamie Lynn herself, is at all relevant, it is being blown way out proportion.


Clearly, the Spears mother didn't do everything as effectively as she should have; I am not debating that. The thing that makes me upset is how taboo this issue is to many individuals. I HATE how negatively sexuality is believed to be in typical society. Sexuality is not a bad thing! It's not a harmful thing, if done responsibly. I was reading some message boards regarding Jamie Lynn's pregnancy, and parents are pissed, trying to figure out what to tell their kids who like Jamie Lynn's show, and just talking about how irresponsible Jamie Lynn is, etc.


Okay, first: how many 16-year-olds are having sex?! MOST of them. And the ones who happen to get pregnant are the ones that get labeled "sluts" and "irresponsible" and all those sorts of negative terms. There exists undoubtedly an infinite number of teens who are having unprotected sex and out of sheer luck or timing or whatever else are not getting pregnant as a result. They may be getting who knows what else, but they're not getting pregnant, even though they may be far more promiscuous than the kids that are getting pregnant.


My daughter is going to be educated beyond belief; she's going to know about the pill, that I'll get it for her so I know she's obtaining it legitimately and safely, that I'll be supportive of her decisions. Obviously, there are limits (I'm not going to endorse prostitution or anything like that), but sex, in itself, is not a bad thing, and if she is with some great guy, she get can go get laid. I would rather have her doing it responsibly, to my knowledge, and thus being safe and avoiding pregnancy and diseases. And I would much rather provide her a solid foundation of this than have some sketchy, fake abstinence notion implanted in her brain at a young age, and then have to try to explain things or cover things up when those in the media or whereever (ie. Jamie Lynn) get knocked up.


Or worse, when my daughter wants to have sex, as is the NATURAL thing to happen, and be too scared to approach me, or whomever, to get educated, and thus ends up in an unfavorable and/or potentially harmful situation. What pines me most about the societal aspect of this, however, is the fact that conservatives narrow the "harmful" things in society to things such as this, to sexuality, when there are far worse things going on.


For example: when Janet Jackson's boob popped out at the superbowl a couple years ago, and everyone threw a fit ... I was so pissed about that and how utterly out of proportion it became; the boob incident was presented during the superbowl wherein commercials endorcing BEER and pseudo-masculinity were been portrayed every 5 minutes -- I would much rather have my kids see a nipple, a natural entity that EVERYBODY has, than think, at their young age, that beer is "cool", or that males need to be macho in order to be "men".


Why the hell have there been so many shootings lately? Some teenager shot a bunch of people in a shopping mall a couple weeks ago in Nebraska. And what about Virginia Tech? All the ones since then? What progress has been made on controlling our kids, and even adults, in obtaining such easy access to GUNS?


What is going through the heads of people, or more specifically, YOUTH, that drive this sort of ambition? And, the even greater question: WHY DO THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES ACCESSIBLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?!


AND, why has shielding sexuality to our teenagers become of higher relevance than shielding violence?


AND, the fact that Brokeback Mountain was so controversial because it contained two guys kissing! How many movies have violence?!!!??!?! 80%, maybe? Probably more than that. And those are fine? But show two men KISSING, LOVING one another, and that's wrong?! THAT is bad for our kids?! Just because they both have a penis?


This is unbelievable to me. The Jamie Lynn shit is everywhere, and the more I see it, the more I wonder how I can possibly be the only apparent person within reach to feel this way. I find it literally unbelievable, that so much of the country would disagree with me on this position.


My kids are going to grow up knowing that can do whatever (respectable) things they want. They are going to be raised knowing that they are allowed to love either sex. They are going to be raised with exposure to all sexual options, religious options if they want, and whatever else. No brainwashing and/or indisputable manipulation will take place. They are going to know how to do things SAFELY and JUSTLY. They will obviously be instilled the vitals -- morality, right from wrong, etc. -- but as far as other issues whose morality is solely up to interpretation, they are going to have OPTIONS.

"A Tragedy That Should Never Have Happened"

I promise that I will write my own material and not just provide the words of others on things that I feel are important; however, Ellen recently addressed this issue on her show, and I thought her speech was deserving of reproduction:



On February 12, an openly-gay 15 year old boy, named Larry, who was an 8th grader in Oxnard, CA was murdered by a fellow 8th grader named Brandon. Larry was killed because he was gay. Days before he was murdered, Larry asked his killer to be his Valentine.

I don't want to be political. This is not political. I am not a political person, but this is personal to me. A boy has been killed, and a number of lives have been ruined.

And somewhere along the line, a killer named Brandon got the message that it's so threatening and so awful and so horrific that Larry would want to be his Valentine, that killing Larry seemed to be the right thing to do. And when the message out there is so horrible, that to be gay, you can get killed for it, we need to change the message.

Larry was not a second-class citizen. I am not a second-class citizen. It is okay if you're gay.

I don't care what people say, I don't care what people think, and I know there are entire groups of people who face discrimination every single day and we are a long way from treating each other equally.

All of it is unacceptable. All of it. But I would like you to start paying attention to how often being gay is a punchline of a monologue, or how often gay jokes are in a movie, and that kind of message, laughing at someone because they're gay is just the beginning. It starts with laughing at someone, then it's verbal abuse, then it's physical abuse, and then it's this kid Brandon killing a kid like Larry.

We must change our country and we can do it, we can do it with our behavior, we can do it with our messages that we send our children, we can do it with our vote. This is an election year, and there is a lot of talk about change, and I think one thing we should change is hate.

Check on who you're voting for, and does that person really truly believe that we are all equal, under the law? And if you're not sure, change your vote. We deserve better.

My heart goes out to everybody that is involved in this horrible, horrible incident; all the families and this poor, even Brandon's life is changed because he did this.

We're going to put more information about this on our website ...

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2008/02/a_tragedy_that_should_never_ha.php

Brilliant

I found an amazing article.

I was going to write out my own argument for same-sex marriage, and I'm sure at some point I will, because for one, if you know me you know how passionate I am about this issue (any equality or civil rights issues, for that matter, but particularly this one because it's the most extreme demonstration of violation of an HUMAN RIGHT; NOT a hetero privilege, HUMAN RIGHT; not to mention the fact that the inherent right in question is VALIDATING LOVING ANOTHER PERSON).

And two, just last week I had a stupid pointless debate with a Christian friend of mine about it (read: facts, logic, reason, nor constitutionality/civil rights can justify marriage which was "founded in Christ"). I'll vent about that sometime in the very near future and post my additional thoughts which maybe aren't as transparent in the article below. Additionally, in a somewhat ironic turn of events, I learned history of the institution of marriage in its entirety tonight in my Family Law class, which will most certainly assist in further debates, as it continuously reaffirms the notion that same-sex couples should be able to marry (when absorbed in an intellectual/academic way; not a purely religious one).

Here is the article, written by John S. Dixon:

The legality of same-sex marriage has come under scrutiny. It is good to examine seemingly new philosophies and perspectives; how else can we determine the rightness of something? But what hasn’t been considered is the legality of denying same-sex marriage.

Article Four of the Federal Constitution states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

In other words, no State has the right to ignore civil agreements reached in other States. So if a same-sex couple in Massachusetts gets married after 2004-May 16th, no State has the right to ignore that marriage. In fact, all States are required to recognize that marriage, because it is a Civil matter. What this essentially means is that State Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) are unconstitutional, plain and simple.

What about the Federal DOMA? Sorry, that, too, will be struck down soon, as it also is unconstitutional by virtue of the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Because the Constitution does not explicitly give the Federal Government jurisdiction over marriage, the right to regulate marriage is, by default, given solely to the States to decide. Therefore, Congress had neither right nor power to pass DOMA in the first place. The solution, some may argue, is to amend the Federal Constitution, which is what George W. Bush endorses.

There is one problem with that: Article Six reads: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Boiled down, this means that the Constitution is barred from contradicting itself. Thus, a Federal Marriage Amendment that would deprive a singled-out populace of any rights runs in clear contradiction to Article Four and Amendment Nine of the Constitution.

Amendment Nine states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution says in Amendment Fourteen: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this basically means is that the States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it will grant rights and privileges. If one group of people is allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgement of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States; it would be a deprivation of liberty and prosperity, and would strip same-sex couples of equal protection of the laws.

Plainly, it is discriminatory, and the Fourteenth Article clearly states that selective granting of privileges is not allowed in the United States. Some may say, "Gays have the right to marry just as everyone else—a right to marry someone of the opposite gender." Similar arguments were made in the days of miscegenation in the 1950’s and 1960’s: "Blacks have the right to marry just as whites do—the right to marry someone of their own race." Such a stance is clearly a form of hypocrisy and oppression, and has no place in the America our forebears envisioned, and contradicts the very basis of the repeal of the miscegenation laws.

Albeit slowly, Americans have striven over the years since Brown vs. the Board of Education to uphold that ruling socially; separate but equal is not equal. In our societal efforts to make this ruling a social and legal reality, we have made tremendous strides to end all forms of discrimination, finally recognizing our fellow man and woman’s rights as unalienable regardless of creed, religion, race, gender, and even sexual orientation.

Regardless how one attempts to argue in favor of banning same-sex marriage, our Constitution is clear that doing so is illegal, even to the point of disallowing our own Congress to revise the Constitution so that it might contradict itself. The time has come. Same-sex couples have existed throughout history. From the Alexandrian Empire to Greece to Rome to America today, gay couples continue to forge out the best lives they can. I know my partner and I do.

And one day, we hope soon, we will be allowed to marry, so that we may enjoy the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities far too many couples already take for granted. After this fight for that which we should already have, we could never, ever take our marriage for granted.

Let us celebrate, for this is the land of the free… and soon we will all be free to marry whomever with we fall in love.

"Equal rights are not special rights unless you're the one who doesn't have them."

"Remember those posters that said, 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life'? Well, that's true of every day but one - the day you die."

For some reason, I get extremely affected by death. Whether I know the person or not, and regardless of the cause. I realize that sounds like an apparent notion, to be 'affected' by death, but I get more affected by the death(s) of strangers than a lot of people I know do. It strikes something odd inside me, undoubtedly due to the finality of it, and the fact that it's the most irrefutable aspect of life as we can possibly know it (obviously, those who believe in the notion of an afterlife would disagree).

I've been particularly bothered, lately specifically, by the abundance of completely unnecessary and preventable deaths that have occurred as a result of one individual's selfish destructive desires. It used to be the case that if one was contemplating suicide, they would merely, not for a lack of compassion, take their own life. Now, there seems to be a trend of taking others down as well. How and why this shift has occurred, in the last year specifically with Virginia Tech and the Nebraska mall shootings over the holidays, I can't help but wonder why the US hasn't actively done anything to attempt to to mend this consistently emerging fad.

In light of the most recent shooting rampage at NIU, I continue to ponder the fact that the government has yet to make any changes in laws surrounding gun control. In many of the articles I've read about this most recent shooting, all of the focus and blame is thrusted upon the school and the lack of security. We reacted the same way after 9/11. We increased security.

*And then we went to war. To kill people who kill people (not to mention, killing people who didn't kill people) to illustrate that it's wrong to kill people. And then we wonder why so many young people in our country take it upon themselves to kill people.

Clearly, increasing security is not a productive solution, and I don't understand why that's not being more universally acknowledged. So much of the country is more concerned and ridiculously passionate about individuals of the same sex wanting to get married than they are about controlling who can buy weapons, where same-sex marriage affects no one other than the persons getting married, and gun control affects people unnecessarily losing their lives. It's surreal to me.

Same-sex marriage is another issue that I will save for a later post, but the lack of interest in limiting weapon sales has not, to my knowledge, been altered, and that frightens me. It frightens me that we, in the 21st century, live in a world where a vast amount of people would rather allow anyone to be able to purchase a gun and take out themselves and others, and then place the blame on the 'security' who could and should have been preventing the disaster, rather than universally acknowledging and taking the blame themselves for the fact that we as a conservative country choose to continue to let these kinds of things happen, as we choose to let anyone, without so much as an inkling of knowledge of their intentions, be able to purchase a weapon.

The government's interest in avoiding some sort of ban or limit of weapon purchase, is, invariably, an economic one. This is a precise example of the contradiction present in our "capitalist democracy." Capitalism requires that those on top turn a profit, where a democracy promises "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents."

A government that asserts its primary interest is in its people, but is allowing them to get knocked off by depressed 20-somethings who hit bottom, is inherently problematic. The fact that 'lack of security' gets burdened with the bulk of the blame is even more problematic, when we wouldn't even have a need for such a preventative force if there didn't exist such easy access to the tools that pose threats to others.

I think gun-control specifically is drastically overlooked. It is literally unbelievable to me that so many conservatives, the bulk of whom are religiously affiliated and thus attribute their moral positions to that, to a notion of living the best life for their god, and not sinning, are more passionately involved in fighting against the "sin" of two people wanting to validate their love for each other, than they are to limiting violent sins against humanity.

I realize that we are presently too far invested in the "freedom" of owning a gun, and that thus it would be illogical to suggest that they should be banned completely. However, I think a compromise needs to be made. A middle ground. For example: no one under 30 should be able to purchase a gun, unless they are in law enforcement. I realize the opposition to this assertion would justifiably so bring up the argument that instituting some sort of law banning anyone under 30 from being able to purchase a gun if he/she so desires would be in violation of constitutional rights. It would be limiting a personal freedom. The right to bear arms, however, was intended primarily in the context of military service, and self defense. Thus, couldn't it be argued that a weapon wouldn't be necessary for self defense if no one was accessible to weapons and thus would have no reason to defend themselves against one?

Additionally, alluding again to the issue of same-sex marriage, why is it that the same conservatives that would refer to our constitution to justify their right to bear arms are the same individuals consistently arguing to AMEND this constitution, the one which they are founding their weapon argument in, to restrict same-sex couples from marrying? To not only limit but prohibit those individuals' personal freedom to love whomever the hell they want and have that love validated in the same way any other 2 individuals, regardless of any other circumstances than that one has a penis and the other has a vagina, would? The constitution is such an innate presentation of our undeniable rights (to bear arms), yet, upon conservatives' own choosing and convenience, it can be altered?

Immaculate Conception

I made my blog! :) First post to come soon ...