According to Mexico's public safety secretary, Genaro Garcia Luna, Mexican drug cartels make $64 billion per year from illegal marijuana sales in the United States. Illegal growers in the southwestern United States often report to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico is not the only source for illegal drugs in this country, but it is a prime example of how our prohibition on marijuana is making criminals wealthy. Making criminals wealthy gives them power--power to buy police, federal officials, elected representatives, and elections.
Our prohibition of marijuana and other drugs represents the repetition of a stupid mistake made in our own history--prohibition of alcohol. This prohibition, ordered through an amendment to our Constitution, caused a subsequent repeal due to the recognition of the thriving criminal empires it created. Illegal distribution and sales of alcohol proved extremely lucrative, and some criminal organizations who participated in these activities diversified into illegal gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and all manner of illegal activity that would allow them to thrive long after the repeal of alcohol prohibition. The same is true of illegal drug sales; the demand is there, and anyone who can supply has the potential to have it made, financially speaking.
In addition to the fostering and support of a criminal element, keeping marijuana and other drugs illegal fills prisons with users, small-time dealers and middlemen, and other people who are underlings to or customers of those with the real money and power. The American taxpayer contributes approximately $10 billion annually to house these prisoners--and two-thirds are in for use, which would not be true if drugs were legal.
Another major cost of drug prohibition is federal enforcement. The annual DEA budget is $2.4 billion, but the cost of enforcement of drug laws at the federal level actually totals over $15 billion every year, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This figure doesn't include local law enforcement activity, but suffice it to say that the total for federal, state, and local enforcement of drug laws far exceeds $15 billion per year. Combine this figure with the figure from the cost of incarceration, and we spend well over $25 billion per year on enforcement of policy that creates and fosters criminal empires. Money out of taxpayers' pockets goes to support laws that allow just the Mexican cartels alone to make over $64 billion annually--never mind other criminal organizations worldwide who make money off of this policy, as well.
The drug war must end if for nothing else, the fiscal irresponsibility of paying to enforce policy that not only helps criminals get very wealthy, but also causes the government to borrow more money from China to cover the cost of enforcing it. Aside from the financial and criminal issues--actually, the criminal issues are related--there is a human cost to the drug war. Users and petty criminals (small distributors and runners) may not be violent, but where there is big money to protect, those who desire to keep their criminal empires thriving will defend that money violently. Law enforcement officers must face this violence directly, and the criminal enterprises use violence to keep those who work for them in line, to settle scores, and to keep other organizations from encroaching on their business. Prisons are full of violent factions, and there's no telling how many people in for drug-related offenses network with and become involved with other criminals doing other crimes. After all, when someone has a prison record, that person finds it difficult to find honest work, and the pay for crime seems worth the risk for a person who finds it difficult to find a living wage in the labor force.
What would be the consequences of legalization of drugs? Sure, we would stop having to pay for enforcement, and the criminal empires would have to find their funding elsewhere or die, but what are the negative impacts? People worry about drug abuse, but do we throw alcoholics in jail? Unless they are arrested for disorderly conduct or drunk driving, we do not; we treat their problem as a "disease", and there are all sorts of programs for recovering alcoholics. As such, abuses of other drugs--because alcohol is, after all, just another mind-altering substance--should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal issue.
Another negative impact some people say legalization might have is easy access to drugs for minors. However, if drugs are sold the same way alcohol is now, there would be no more access to them than their is to alcohol--and people have actually died from alcohol poisoning. There are no known marijuana overdose deaths. People who buy alcohol for minors are unscrupulous people; they would get kids drugs now if they had access, and those drugs aren't regulated. They could be laced with poisons or could be mixed with other drugs. Drugs purchased in a state store or marijuana dispensary are pure--not laced with cocaine, not dipped in formaldehyde, not poisoned. I'm not advocating drugs for minors, but what I am saying is that if kids do happen to get their hands on these drugs, at least they would be safer than those they could (and do!!) procure illegally. We also have to remember that kids get worse drugs out of the medicine cabinets of their own relatives, and we don't make those drugs illegal.
Perhaps there are negative impacts I have not covered. I'd like to hear any that people think exist. I do know that there is another positive impact, aside from starving criminals of money from illegal drug sales and the ceasing of borrowing money from foreign sources to pay for enforcement. We can tax drugs if they are regulated. Taxing drugs creates revenue; prohibition only creates costs. If we recover these costs in fines and seizure of the funds and possessions of the people we arrest, I'd love to see those figures, as well. To me, it makes sense to support legalization of drugs, because the negative impacts of prohibition are far worse than any negative impacts I can think of legalization causing. If you agree, please write your representatives. Reading this blog or posting on Facebook does nothing to affect policy change. Tell your representatives; run for office; create a petition to support legalization at the state level. Just do something.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Why the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Bugs Me
There are several reasons I've kept my opinion on the Pledge of Allegiance to myself, for the most part, until now. The most important of them--and the only one that really has kept me from saying anything--is that I don't want to drag my daughter into the debate. I use the term "debate" loosely, because most people who think the Pledge should be said in schools get extremely emotional when anyone opposes that opinion, and mostly incapable of rational debate. I definitely don't want my daughter, who has autism, who doesn't understand the Pledge or why people are saying it, to become the victim of the derision of these irrational individuals. However, a couple of posts on Facebook from friends have prompted me to write this article. One gave me a rational response to my objection; the other has not yet responded. It's been bothering me that my child has the Pledge memorized because they were saying it over the P.A. system at school every morning (I just happened to hear it about 3 days before school was out for the summer), and I just can't stay silent anymore.
I supported Michael Newdow in his fight to get the Pledge out of schools on the basis of a First Amendment violation of the Establishment Clause, but it's so different when it's my child, and even more because my child has special needs, including a language delay, which prevents her from having everyday conversations. She can express her needs, recite what she's memorized (she has replayed the dialogue of family gatherings in their entirety during pretend play--her memory is amazing), and she answers questions to a limited degree. She has a tremendous vocabulary, and she has been doing well academically. However, there is a comprehension issue that prevents her from understanding things like the Pledge of Allegiance. It does her no good to learn it, because she has no idea what it means...and when she comes home to her atheist father and recites that we are "one nation under God", it upsets me. I can't speak for Michael Newdow, but I'm guessing that he felt something similar in relation to his own child. When this country is called "one nation under God", that excludes me--a law-abiding, tax-paying, working, natural-born citizen of the United States. More on this later, because at this point, I would like to break down the Pledge in its entirely.
Let's start with "I pledge allegiance..." At what age did any of us understand what "allegiance" means? I'm not sure when I knew it. It was probably earlier than most, since I made a habit of reading the dictionary when I was a kid. I was a strange child. In any case, if someone took a quiz of elementary school children, I would bet that the percentage of them who know what the word "allegiance" means would be low. I know no teachers in my elementary school explained any of the words in the Pledge.
Next comes "...to the flag of the United States of America..." Wait, we're pledging allegiance to a colorful piece of cloth? If I understand my history correctly, what this part of the Pledge actually means is that we pledge allegiance to the war standard of the United States--because that's what a flag used to be. That is why the military has such reverence for it; it was the rallying point for troops and the symbol of your side. It's an outdated reference that hasn't the meaning it had when war didn't involve shooting from a great distance or communications by radio. Outmoded reference aside, my interpretation of this part of the Pledge means allegiance to the military.
After the flag reference comes "..and to the Republic for which it stands..." Do I need to pledge allegiance to a country where I'm already a natural-born citizen? As a child? What good does it do for a child to affirm such allegiance? Do we expect children to defect from the United States to seek political asylum? And what on earth does "Republic" mean? I know, but do children? Like "allegiance", "republic" was never explained to me when I was very young. I'm pretty sure I learned it in high school at some point--or I might have known before high school. I just remember one teacher talking about forms of government, and that our form of government is a republic--where we elect representatives to a lawmaking body. It is not a democracy, as many people imagine, because in a democracy, we would vote directly on everything.
Here's "...one nation under God..." again. Are we one nation under one god? I would argue that with a growing population of nonbelievers, which is at around 17% now, that we are not. We are one nation under the Constitution, and we have been since the adoption of that document. We are a nation of laws and not a theocracy. The Bible is not our law book, and contrary to the beliefs of some, our laws are not based on the Bible. I would argue that not all believers believe in the same god, or at least believe in such vastly different ways that they may as well call their god by different names, according to each religion. What does it mean to be one nation under "God"--which I'm assuming, given that it was put into the Pledge in the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, when religiosity was a litmus test for patriotism, and being a nonbeliever meant you must be communist, that it's the Christian god--when we are not a theocracy?
Next comes the word, "indivisible". One would hope that no state will secede again, but we are a divided country right now. At no point in my life have I seen the country more divided on party lines--although as a student of history, I know that the Civil War is not the only time this country has been politically divided. In any case, secession probably isn't going to happen with any state anytime soon, even though some people talk about it. That's what this word refers to--no more talk of separation into separate countries by states.
Finally, we have "...with liberty and justice for all." Liberty and justice for everyone sounds great, but arguments can be made that not everyone has liberty or gets proper justice in this country. Minorities tend to be incarcerated at a greater rate than the white majority, and before someone says that it's because they commit more crime, I'm also talking about comparing people who do the same crimes and get different punishments. There was a study NPR talked about a few years ago that talked about crimes committed by white people and crimes committed by black people. The study demonstrated that white people received sentences that were less harsh, and sometimes got off altogether. Is this justice? The banks received a bailout--with people on Wall Street receiving bonus checks--after creating the biggest economic disaster since 1929 through the practice of selling toxic mortgages as prime investments and insuring them, knowing that these mortgages would fail (and yes, the did know, because they hire actuaries to calculate the statistics accurately), which homeowners saw the values of their homes crash, businesses couldn't get credit to invest in growth, and millions of people lost their jobs. Is this justice? I would argue also that the economic downturn hurt our liberty, because we certainly could not do as much as we wanted anymore.
Having given a breakdown of the Pledge, I would like now to explain why I stopped reciting it in high school in my junior year. Over the P.A. system, our principal at Antwerp High School in Ohio explained that the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that it was a violation of freedom of speech to force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. The case--not given by the principal; I found out later--was West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. After I heard that information, I refused to say the Pledge in schools. Though I knew the Court had made some bad decisions, this one was about the First Amendment--that freedom of speech could not be abridged. I had never been given a choice regarding whether to say the Pledge or not in school, and those in authority at schools I attended before Antwerp were acting in violation of the Court's decision. By that time, I had read the Constitution, and knew the Court had the final say in what was Constitutional and what was not--and the only ways to overturn these decisions was to amend the Constitution or have the Court itself overturn a previous decision. To defy a Court's decision is to defy the Constitution, and how could one pledge allegiance to a country when one did not believe in the document that was its very foundation? I found it incredibly un-American and unpatriotic to defy the Court in this fashion.
Having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools serves no educational purpose, and giving children no choice in the matter is unconstitutional. As such, reciting it over the loudspeaker and encouraging my child to join in, a child who has no understanding of the Pledge and no idea that she has a choice whether to say it or not, is unconstitutional. The religious reference in the Pledge also should make it unconstitutional, as it is a violation of my free exercise of religion and that of my child's, which includes our choice whether or not to opt out altogether. My child has no idea what atheism, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism are (let alone all of the other religions out there), and I have no practical way of explaining any of them to her. Having her recite words that include her in "one nation under God" interferes with my right as a parent to raise my child free from religion. It's indoctrination, not a patriotic act. It is only a patriotic act to say a pledge of allegiance (and I would leave out "under God") if you understand its meaning and say it according to that awareness.
I supported Michael Newdow in his fight to get the Pledge out of schools on the basis of a First Amendment violation of the Establishment Clause, but it's so different when it's my child, and even more because my child has special needs, including a language delay, which prevents her from having everyday conversations. She can express her needs, recite what she's memorized (she has replayed the dialogue of family gatherings in their entirety during pretend play--her memory is amazing), and she answers questions to a limited degree. She has a tremendous vocabulary, and she has been doing well academically. However, there is a comprehension issue that prevents her from understanding things like the Pledge of Allegiance. It does her no good to learn it, because she has no idea what it means...and when she comes home to her atheist father and recites that we are "one nation under God", it upsets me. I can't speak for Michael Newdow, but I'm guessing that he felt something similar in relation to his own child. When this country is called "one nation under God", that excludes me--a law-abiding, tax-paying, working, natural-born citizen of the United States. More on this later, because at this point, I would like to break down the Pledge in its entirely.
Let's start with "I pledge allegiance..." At what age did any of us understand what "allegiance" means? I'm not sure when I knew it. It was probably earlier than most, since I made a habit of reading the dictionary when I was a kid. I was a strange child. In any case, if someone took a quiz of elementary school children, I would bet that the percentage of them who know what the word "allegiance" means would be low. I know no teachers in my elementary school explained any of the words in the Pledge.
Next comes "...to the flag of the United States of America..." Wait, we're pledging allegiance to a colorful piece of cloth? If I understand my history correctly, what this part of the Pledge actually means is that we pledge allegiance to the war standard of the United States--because that's what a flag used to be. That is why the military has such reverence for it; it was the rallying point for troops and the symbol of your side. It's an outdated reference that hasn't the meaning it had when war didn't involve shooting from a great distance or communications by radio. Outmoded reference aside, my interpretation of this part of the Pledge means allegiance to the military.
After the flag reference comes "..and to the Republic for which it stands..." Do I need to pledge allegiance to a country where I'm already a natural-born citizen? As a child? What good does it do for a child to affirm such allegiance? Do we expect children to defect from the United States to seek political asylum? And what on earth does "Republic" mean? I know, but do children? Like "allegiance", "republic" was never explained to me when I was very young. I'm pretty sure I learned it in high school at some point--or I might have known before high school. I just remember one teacher talking about forms of government, and that our form of government is a republic--where we elect representatives to a lawmaking body. It is not a democracy, as many people imagine, because in a democracy, we would vote directly on everything.
Here's "...one nation under God..." again. Are we one nation under one god? I would argue that with a growing population of nonbelievers, which is at around 17% now, that we are not. We are one nation under the Constitution, and we have been since the adoption of that document. We are a nation of laws and not a theocracy. The Bible is not our law book, and contrary to the beliefs of some, our laws are not based on the Bible. I would argue that not all believers believe in the same god, or at least believe in such vastly different ways that they may as well call their god by different names, according to each religion. What does it mean to be one nation under "God"--which I'm assuming, given that it was put into the Pledge in the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, when religiosity was a litmus test for patriotism, and being a nonbeliever meant you must be communist, that it's the Christian god--when we are not a theocracy?
Next comes the word, "indivisible". One would hope that no state will secede again, but we are a divided country right now. At no point in my life have I seen the country more divided on party lines--although as a student of history, I know that the Civil War is not the only time this country has been politically divided. In any case, secession probably isn't going to happen with any state anytime soon, even though some people talk about it. That's what this word refers to--no more talk of separation into separate countries by states.
Finally, we have "...with liberty and justice for all." Liberty and justice for everyone sounds great, but arguments can be made that not everyone has liberty or gets proper justice in this country. Minorities tend to be incarcerated at a greater rate than the white majority, and before someone says that it's because they commit more crime, I'm also talking about comparing people who do the same crimes and get different punishments. There was a study NPR talked about a few years ago that talked about crimes committed by white people and crimes committed by black people. The study demonstrated that white people received sentences that were less harsh, and sometimes got off altogether. Is this justice? The banks received a bailout--with people on Wall Street receiving bonus checks--after creating the biggest economic disaster since 1929 through the practice of selling toxic mortgages as prime investments and insuring them, knowing that these mortgages would fail (and yes, the did know, because they hire actuaries to calculate the statistics accurately), which homeowners saw the values of their homes crash, businesses couldn't get credit to invest in growth, and millions of people lost their jobs. Is this justice? I would argue also that the economic downturn hurt our liberty, because we certainly could not do as much as we wanted anymore.
Having given a breakdown of the Pledge, I would like now to explain why I stopped reciting it in high school in my junior year. Over the P.A. system, our principal at Antwerp High School in Ohio explained that the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that it was a violation of freedom of speech to force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. The case--not given by the principal; I found out later--was West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. After I heard that information, I refused to say the Pledge in schools. Though I knew the Court had made some bad decisions, this one was about the First Amendment--that freedom of speech could not be abridged. I had never been given a choice regarding whether to say the Pledge or not in school, and those in authority at schools I attended before Antwerp were acting in violation of the Court's decision. By that time, I had read the Constitution, and knew the Court had the final say in what was Constitutional and what was not--and the only ways to overturn these decisions was to amend the Constitution or have the Court itself overturn a previous decision. To defy a Court's decision is to defy the Constitution, and how could one pledge allegiance to a country when one did not believe in the document that was its very foundation? I found it incredibly un-American and unpatriotic to defy the Court in this fashion.
Having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools serves no educational purpose, and giving children no choice in the matter is unconstitutional. As such, reciting it over the loudspeaker and encouraging my child to join in, a child who has no understanding of the Pledge and no idea that she has a choice whether to say it or not, is unconstitutional. The religious reference in the Pledge also should make it unconstitutional, as it is a violation of my free exercise of religion and that of my child's, which includes our choice whether or not to opt out altogether. My child has no idea what atheism, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism are (let alone all of the other religions out there), and I have no practical way of explaining any of them to her. Having her recite words that include her in "one nation under God" interferes with my right as a parent to raise my child free from religion. It's indoctrination, not a patriotic act. It is only a patriotic act to say a pledge of allegiance (and I would leave out "under God") if you understand its meaning and say it according to that awareness.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Imprison homosexuals with an electrified fence?
I will never understand the thinking of people like Pastor Charles Worley of North Carolina, who thinks all homosexuals should be imprisoned inside an electrified fence. Although I don't lend credence to the claims of the Bible, I certainly have read it several times, and I remember the Jesus character within hanging out with those people considered sinner. I think it's ridiculous to consider behavior that comes naturally a "sin", but setting that aside: even if Christians think homosexuality is a choice, and a sinful one at that, what example of Jesus are they following by suggesting such a thing?
Setting the Bible aside (as I did finally at age 21, with doubts entering my mind much earlier), we live in a nation of laws. We have a Constitution that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law for all American citizens. What right does anyone have to take those rights away from any class of citizens? Thinking like Pastor Worley's is un-American.
I know people think comparing people to Hitler is extreme, but this sort of thinking is EXACTLY like Hitler's! Locking up people who you think are undesirable in order to get rid of them (as if no homosexuals will ever be born to heterosexual couples again) is exactly the sort of thing that results in the genocide that occurred under Hitler's regime.
It's amazing to me how much vitriol people like Worley have toward people who they think are "sinners". I'm sure he'd be on board with throwing atheists inside an electrified fence as well.
Setting the Bible aside (as I did finally at age 21, with doubts entering my mind much earlier), we live in a nation of laws. We have a Constitution that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law for all American citizens. What right does anyone have to take those rights away from any class of citizens? Thinking like Pastor Worley's is un-American.
I know people think comparing people to Hitler is extreme, but this sort of thinking is EXACTLY like Hitler's! Locking up people who you think are undesirable in order to get rid of them (as if no homosexuals will ever be born to heterosexual couples again) is exactly the sort of thing that results in the genocide that occurred under Hitler's regime.
It's amazing to me how much vitriol people like Worley have toward people who they think are "sinners". I'm sure he'd be on board with throwing atheists inside an electrified fence as well.
Monday, May 14, 2012
I bought a car from Enterprise
I work out of my home, so I haven't had much need for a vehicle--until recently. Moving involved so many errands, it made my standard practice of renting a car when I needed one impractical and expensive. I drove so infrequently, it wasn't worth the insurance to buy a new car. Also, there has been call recently for me to have a car on short notice, and that's not always easy. I plan on moving again in the near future, as well, and not having a car at will makes it difficult.
Nearly every vehicle I have rented in the past several years has been from Enterprise. Every experience I've had with them has involved excellent customer service. They got to know me by name relatively quickly, and they have always treated me like a VIP when I rented from them. Plus, they pick me up, which for me was incredibly important until recently, given that I had no transportation to their locations. When I decided I needed a vehicle of my own again, I mentioned it to them, and they referred me to Enterprise Car Sales.
At first, I had some apprehension regarding buying a vehicle from a place that rents cars. The thought crossed my mind that people don't take care of the cars when they rent them, but the evidence gathered from actually driving the cars Enterprise offers told me that my misgivings were unfounded. I never had problems with an Enterprise car. They were always in good shape. I've never had a dirty car, one with engine noise, a slipping transmission, or any other issue. The sales representative who called me, Robby Batayeh, called to follow up on the lead the people at the rental location give him, so I decided to call him back and go look at a vehicle.
Robby was friendly, courteous, and low-pressure. He and I talked about what I wanted in a vehicle, and he came up with a list of them that fit what I asked for--rather than what he wanted to sell me, which has been my past experience with several car dealerships. Robby ended up delivering my car to me. At the time, I had a van I rented from Enterprise. I had forgotten some of the stuff I was moving in the back of the van. Robby not only took the items out of the van, but he carried them downstairs for me, knowing I had a back problem. He did not have to do that for me, but the fact that he did makes him stand out in my mind as a person committed not only to outstanding customer service, but to a genuine empathy and friendly rapport with his customers.
If you are in the market for a car, I highly recommend Enterprise Car Sales. Let them know Greg Reich sent you. If you are in the metro Detroit area, look up the location on Grand River Avenue and ask for Robby. The rest of the people there were friendly, as well.
On a final note, I will miss renting cars as frequently as I did from the Enterprise office on 8 Mile near Lahser Road, because the people there were also wonderful, and really went out of their way for me on several occasions. If you need to rent a car, I recommend them as well. I wish I could remember all of their names, because they all deserve praise, but Dan and Blair took care of me several times.
Nearly every vehicle I have rented in the past several years has been from Enterprise. Every experience I've had with them has involved excellent customer service. They got to know me by name relatively quickly, and they have always treated me like a VIP when I rented from them. Plus, they pick me up, which for me was incredibly important until recently, given that I had no transportation to their locations. When I decided I needed a vehicle of my own again, I mentioned it to them, and they referred me to Enterprise Car Sales.
At first, I had some apprehension regarding buying a vehicle from a place that rents cars. The thought crossed my mind that people don't take care of the cars when they rent them, but the evidence gathered from actually driving the cars Enterprise offers told me that my misgivings were unfounded. I never had problems with an Enterprise car. They were always in good shape. I've never had a dirty car, one with engine noise, a slipping transmission, or any other issue. The sales representative who called me, Robby Batayeh, called to follow up on the lead the people at the rental location give him, so I decided to call him back and go look at a vehicle.
Robby was friendly, courteous, and low-pressure. He and I talked about what I wanted in a vehicle, and he came up with a list of them that fit what I asked for--rather than what he wanted to sell me, which has been my past experience with several car dealerships. Robby ended up delivering my car to me. At the time, I had a van I rented from Enterprise. I had forgotten some of the stuff I was moving in the back of the van. Robby not only took the items out of the van, but he carried them downstairs for me, knowing I had a back problem. He did not have to do that for me, but the fact that he did makes him stand out in my mind as a person committed not only to outstanding customer service, but to a genuine empathy and friendly rapport with his customers.
If you are in the market for a car, I highly recommend Enterprise Car Sales. Let them know Greg Reich sent you. If you are in the metro Detroit area, look up the location on Grand River Avenue and ask for Robby. The rest of the people there were friendly, as well.
On a final note, I will miss renting cars as frequently as I did from the Enterprise office on 8 Mile near Lahser Road, because the people there were also wonderful, and really went out of their way for me on several occasions. If you need to rent a car, I recommend them as well. I wish I could remember all of their names, because they all deserve praise, but Dan and Blair took care of me several times.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Tired of politicians fighting against gay marriage
Politicians waste taxpayer time and money on so many things, but one of the more despicable things involves the legislation of discrimination. It seems like every year, on both the federal and state levels, Republicans sponsor legislation that bans gay marriage. Americans need jobs and adequate health care, but these politicians decide that keeping homosexuals from marrying each other takes priority over legislation that would actually benefit the people. They instead waste time on these bills that help no one, but do hurt millions of American citizens.
The latest iteration of this discriminatory legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act. "Defense"? The purpose of this act is not to preserve marriage between one man and one woman; it is to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, pure and simple. How does defining marriage as the legal bond between one man and one woman defend marriage? Does it prevent divorce? Does it increase the number of marriages between heterosexual couples? An act that prevented people with a lack of financial means, high debt, or low credit scores from getting married would do more to "defend" marriage than this act. Actually, let me rephrase that: legislation that took financial means into consideration would actually do something to preserve marriage, where an act to define marriage as a legal union between one man and woman does absolutely nothing to defend marriage.
Now, I am not advocating for a financial means test for marriage; all I'm saying is that if the goal is to defend marriage, preventing homosexuals from marrying each other doesn't do a damned thing to preserve the institution; it doesn't strengthen marriage or improve any couple's relationship in any way; it does nothing to address issues that cause marriages to fail. In other words, calling such a piece of legislation a "defense" of marriage is disingenuous at best, a bald-faced lie, at worst.
Americans need jobs right now. We need adequate and affordable health care. We have a crumbling infrastructure that needs more attention. We have out-of-control debt to other countries. We're still at war. While I do think it's possible to address several issues at once, I don't know what makes those advocating this Defense of Marriage Act think that it has any positive impact on this country whatsoever. And, since Republicans in Congress normally only support bills that benefit the wealthy, I can only figure that they want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman so companies will not have to even consider providing benefits to same-sex couples.
There is, of course, one other reason certain politicians support a ban of gay marriage, and that reason comes from their religion. They believe homosexuality is not naturally-occurring--anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom or studies of human sexuality knows better--but rather, they believe it's sinful behavior, and homosexuals are giving in to temptation. They believe it because an ancient book of myths tells them so. Of course, they cherry-pick what parts of this book of myths to believe; I can't remember the public stoning of a drunk in the public square lately, or the execution of adulterers, or any of the other punishments Leviticus lays out for things we would not even consider to be crimes today.
Whether it's the religious lobbyists or the corporate lobbyists influencing the actions of these politicians, it needs to stop. My representatives are against this act, but if yours are not, please let them know that they are wasting valuable time while discriminating against American citizens--that you would rather see them work on legislation that benefits all of us instead of acting to hurt tens of millions of our people.
The latest iteration of this discriminatory legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act. "Defense"? The purpose of this act is not to preserve marriage between one man and one woman; it is to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, pure and simple. How does defining marriage as the legal bond between one man and one woman defend marriage? Does it prevent divorce? Does it increase the number of marriages between heterosexual couples? An act that prevented people with a lack of financial means, high debt, or low credit scores from getting married would do more to "defend" marriage than this act. Actually, let me rephrase that: legislation that took financial means into consideration would actually do something to preserve marriage, where an act to define marriage as a legal union between one man and woman does absolutely nothing to defend marriage.
Now, I am not advocating for a financial means test for marriage; all I'm saying is that if the goal is to defend marriage, preventing homosexuals from marrying each other doesn't do a damned thing to preserve the institution; it doesn't strengthen marriage or improve any couple's relationship in any way; it does nothing to address issues that cause marriages to fail. In other words, calling such a piece of legislation a "defense" of marriage is disingenuous at best, a bald-faced lie, at worst.
Americans need jobs right now. We need adequate and affordable health care. We have a crumbling infrastructure that needs more attention. We have out-of-control debt to other countries. We're still at war. While I do think it's possible to address several issues at once, I don't know what makes those advocating this Defense of Marriage Act think that it has any positive impact on this country whatsoever. And, since Republicans in Congress normally only support bills that benefit the wealthy, I can only figure that they want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman so companies will not have to even consider providing benefits to same-sex couples.
There is, of course, one other reason certain politicians support a ban of gay marriage, and that reason comes from their religion. They believe homosexuality is not naturally-occurring--anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom or studies of human sexuality knows better--but rather, they believe it's sinful behavior, and homosexuals are giving in to temptation. They believe it because an ancient book of myths tells them so. Of course, they cherry-pick what parts of this book of myths to believe; I can't remember the public stoning of a drunk in the public square lately, or the execution of adulterers, or any of the other punishments Leviticus lays out for things we would not even consider to be crimes today.
Whether it's the religious lobbyists or the corporate lobbyists influencing the actions of these politicians, it needs to stop. My representatives are against this act, but if yours are not, please let them know that they are wasting valuable time while discriminating against American citizens--that you would rather see them work on legislation that benefits all of us instead of acting to hurt tens of millions of our people.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Weighing in on Travon Martin
I'm coming into this discussion late, but it's been bothering me that Trayvon Martin's killer is not only walking free, but also gaining supporters, at the very least about the notion that his crime was not racially-motivated.
I listened to the 911 call, and would like to parse it out.
Zimmerman: "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle."
It's relevant to the case whether or not this claim is true. Had Retreat View Circle seen a recent series of break-ins? According to CLRSearch, the area has over twice the national average risk of crimes such as larceny, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and assault. It's possible the claim of recent break-ins was true, but definitely should be verified.
Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about."
I would become suspicious if the person I observed went around the back of a house, started trying to jimmy a car door, or actually took an action that merited suspicion. Walking in the rain and looking around isn't a crime and isn't suspicious. If, as has been suggested in the media, Trayvon Martin had his hood over his head, it seems a reasonable thing to do in the rain, and it seems like it would hide any indication that he was "on drugs". What, was he waving his hands in front of his face and laughing hysterically? At this point, I'm more suspiciouis of Zimmerman than anything else.
911: "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?"
Zimmerman: "He looks black."
911: "Did you see what he was wearing?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He's here now. He's just staring."
Ok, I'm sorry, but if "he's here now", how could Zimmerman not tell the difference between jeans and sweat pants? Seems Martin had to be at some distance for Zimmerman not to be able to tell.
911: "He's just walking around the area? The houses? Ok."
Zimmerman: "Now he's staring at me."
Is staring a crime? Maybe if he heard Zimmerman calling 911 on him, he was incredulous and was simply staring in amazement. It's doubtful, since it was raining and Zimmerman was in his vehicle--unless he leaves his windows down in the rain.
911: "Ok, you said that 1111 Retreat View or 111?"
Zimmerman: "That's the clubhouse."
911: "He's near the clubhouse now?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waistband. And he's a black male."
So...Zimmerman was at the clubhouse? Maybe. Seems suspicious to me that if he thought this kid was on drugs and had something in his waistband, that he wouldn't move on and find safety while he waiting for police.
911: "How old would you say he is?"
Zimmerman: "He's got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."
911: "Late teens?"
Zimmerman: "Uh huh. Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is."
According to reports, Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea on him.
If I'm a teenager walking alone, I'd be a bit suspicious of some adult male sitting alone, parked, staring at me, talking into his phone. Just sayin'.
911: "Let me know if he does anything, ok?"
Zimmerman: "Ok."
911: "We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."
Zimmerman: "Ok. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse."
It is relevant to point out here that so far, Trayvon Martin hadn't done anything but walk, look around, and allegedly approach Zimmerman to check him out. He hadn't said anything threatening to Zimmerman, he hadn't tried to break into a home or a car, he hadn't taken anything out to smoke, hadn't pulled a gun. He was having the police called on him for walking and staring, but somehow he has been lumped into a group called "these assholes" who "always get away."
911: "So it's on the left hand side of the clubhouse?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. He's running."
911: "He's running? Which way is he running?"
Zimmerman: "Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood."
911: "Ok, which entrance is that he's headed towards?"
Zimmerman: "The back entrance."
Did Trayvon Martin get close enough to George Zimmerman to figure out that he was on the phone with the police? If so, running would be justified. I'd run too. It's pure speculation, though. Still, what is not speculation is that Martin hadn't done anything wrong at this point but somehow appeared suspicious to George Zimmerman.
According to some sources, including CNN (and amplified audio I myself have heard), Zimmerman says "fucking coons" at this point in the call. If true (and I believe my own ears), Zimmerman motives appear linked to his racism. That's not surprising, considering all Trayvon Martin appeared to be doing was walking (and allegedly staring) while black.
911: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
911: "Ok. We don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."
The rest of the call involves the dispatcher taking Zimmerman's name, phone number, and location. The only relevant part to the events is Zimmerman's statement that he didnt' know where the kid was because he ran. However, somehow, he was able to hunt Trayvon Martin down to confront him, which means he left the safety of his vechicle, ran after Martin, and created any possible threat to his person Martin may have presented. Florida's "no retreat" law should not apply to Zimmerman, since he made no reasonable attempt to remain safe, and made every attempt to put himself into the danger he himself perceived.
Let's look at this from a teenager's perspective--any teenager. What should a teen do if a larger man leaves his vehicle to follow him or her? Run like hell! Why would a teen not do that? For all Trayvon Martin knew, Zimmerman could have been a sexual predator or who knows what else.
Maybe Zimmerman's motives were pure paranoia and he had fanatasies of being a heroic vigilante, and his racial epithet was just a side story (although I have a hard time believing it). However, the reality is that he shot a 17-year-old after confronting him and getting into a fight he so clearly could have avoided. He had no business following Trayvon Martin, had no real reason to call 911 on him, and deserves to be arrested and charged with homocide. He was in his vehicle at the start of the call. The vehicle presumably has working locks and windows. There was no attempt on Martin's part to get into the vehicle to assualt Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin RAN from Zimmerman. How are Zimmerman's actions defensible by any stretch of the imagination?
It has sickened me in the past several days to hear people bring up the boy's suspension from school and all sorts of other things to try to justify Zimmerman's invocation of self-defense. I don't care if Trayvon Martin was a troubled teen, a poor student, a threatening football player, or any of the other things that people defending Zimmerman have made him out to be. I have been suspended from school myself. Kids screw up. Male judgment doesn't even truly develop until age 20, according to the findings of a Supreme Court case regarding the death penalty and teenagers. Nothing Trayvon Martin could have done in his young life justified Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to hunt him down and confront him, possibly assault him (I haven't heard who started the fight), then kill him. If the teenager didn't know who Zimmerman was, he would naturally have been justified in fighting for his life if the adult assaulted him--I would have.
All I know about Trayvon is that he was a son to a mother and a father who are deeply grieved to have to have losttheir son. The idea that George Zimmerman walks free after leaving his vehicle to hunt this boy down and kill him mystifies and infuriates me to no end.
Please, someone: arrest this man.
I listened to the 911 call, and would like to parse it out.
Zimmerman: "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle."
It's relevant to the case whether or not this claim is true. Had Retreat View Circle seen a recent series of break-ins? According to CLRSearch, the area has over twice the national average risk of crimes such as larceny, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and assault. It's possible the claim of recent break-ins was true, but definitely should be verified.
Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about."
I would become suspicious if the person I observed went around the back of a house, started trying to jimmy a car door, or actually took an action that merited suspicion. Walking in the rain and looking around isn't a crime and isn't suspicious. If, as has been suggested in the media, Trayvon Martin had his hood over his head, it seems a reasonable thing to do in the rain, and it seems like it would hide any indication that he was "on drugs". What, was he waving his hands in front of his face and laughing hysterically? At this point, I'm more suspiciouis of Zimmerman than anything else.
911: "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?"
Zimmerman: "He looks black."
911: "Did you see what he was wearing?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He's here now. He's just staring."
Ok, I'm sorry, but if "he's here now", how could Zimmerman not tell the difference between jeans and sweat pants? Seems Martin had to be at some distance for Zimmerman not to be able to tell.
911: "He's just walking around the area? The houses? Ok."
Zimmerman: "Now he's staring at me."
Is staring a crime? Maybe if he heard Zimmerman calling 911 on him, he was incredulous and was simply staring in amazement. It's doubtful, since it was raining and Zimmerman was in his vehicle--unless he leaves his windows down in the rain.
911: "Ok, you said that 1111 Retreat View or 111?"
Zimmerman: "That's the clubhouse."
911: "He's near the clubhouse now?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waistband. And he's a black male."
So...Zimmerman was at the clubhouse? Maybe. Seems suspicious to me that if he thought this kid was on drugs and had something in his waistband, that he wouldn't move on and find safety while he waiting for police.
911: "How old would you say he is?"
Zimmerman: "He's got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."
911: "Late teens?"
Zimmerman: "Uh huh. Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is."
According to reports, Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea on him.
If I'm a teenager walking alone, I'd be a bit suspicious of some adult male sitting alone, parked, staring at me, talking into his phone. Just sayin'.
911: "Let me know if he does anything, ok?"
Zimmerman: "Ok."
911: "We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."
Zimmerman: "Ok. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse."
It is relevant to point out here that so far, Trayvon Martin hadn't done anything but walk, look around, and allegedly approach Zimmerman to check him out. He hadn't said anything threatening to Zimmerman, he hadn't tried to break into a home or a car, he hadn't taken anything out to smoke, hadn't pulled a gun. He was having the police called on him for walking and staring, but somehow he has been lumped into a group called "these assholes" who "always get away."
911: "So it's on the left hand side of the clubhouse?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. He's running."
911: "He's running? Which way is he running?"
Zimmerman: "Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood."
911: "Ok, which entrance is that he's headed towards?"
Zimmerman: "The back entrance."
Did Trayvon Martin get close enough to George Zimmerman to figure out that he was on the phone with the police? If so, running would be justified. I'd run too. It's pure speculation, though. Still, what is not speculation is that Martin hadn't done anything wrong at this point but somehow appeared suspicious to George Zimmerman.
According to some sources, including CNN (and amplified audio I myself have heard), Zimmerman says "fucking coons" at this point in the call. If true (and I believe my own ears), Zimmerman motives appear linked to his racism. That's not surprising, considering all Trayvon Martin appeared to be doing was walking (and allegedly staring) while black.
911: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
911: "Ok. We don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."
The rest of the call involves the dispatcher taking Zimmerman's name, phone number, and location. The only relevant part to the events is Zimmerman's statement that he didnt' know where the kid was because he ran. However, somehow, he was able to hunt Trayvon Martin down to confront him, which means he left the safety of his vechicle, ran after Martin, and created any possible threat to his person Martin may have presented. Florida's "no retreat" law should not apply to Zimmerman, since he made no reasonable attempt to remain safe, and made every attempt to put himself into the danger he himself perceived.
Let's look at this from a teenager's perspective--any teenager. What should a teen do if a larger man leaves his vehicle to follow him or her? Run like hell! Why would a teen not do that? For all Trayvon Martin knew, Zimmerman could have been a sexual predator or who knows what else.
Maybe Zimmerman's motives were pure paranoia and he had fanatasies of being a heroic vigilante, and his racial epithet was just a side story (although I have a hard time believing it). However, the reality is that he shot a 17-year-old after confronting him and getting into a fight he so clearly could have avoided. He had no business following Trayvon Martin, had no real reason to call 911 on him, and deserves to be arrested and charged with homocide. He was in his vehicle at the start of the call. The vehicle presumably has working locks and windows. There was no attempt on Martin's part to get into the vehicle to assualt Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin RAN from Zimmerman. How are Zimmerman's actions defensible by any stretch of the imagination?
It has sickened me in the past several days to hear people bring up the boy's suspension from school and all sorts of other things to try to justify Zimmerman's invocation of self-defense. I don't care if Trayvon Martin was a troubled teen, a poor student, a threatening football player, or any of the other things that people defending Zimmerman have made him out to be. I have been suspended from school myself. Kids screw up. Male judgment doesn't even truly develop until age 20, according to the findings of a Supreme Court case regarding the death penalty and teenagers. Nothing Trayvon Martin could have done in his young life justified Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to hunt him down and confront him, possibly assault him (I haven't heard who started the fight), then kill him. If the teenager didn't know who Zimmerman was, he would naturally have been justified in fighting for his life if the adult assaulted him--I would have.
All I know about Trayvon is that he was a son to a mother and a father who are deeply grieved to have to have losttheir son. The idea that George Zimmerman walks free after leaving his vehicle to hunt this boy down and kill him mystifies and infuriates me to no end.
Please, someone: arrest this man.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Despicable People: Rush Limbaugh
I haven't written in awhile, but some things have happened recently that have motivated me to post.
Some time ago, I helped the campaign to get rid of Michael Savage's sponsors because of what he said about autism. I listened to his show to find out who they were, then I posted them here and wrote to them individually about the horrible comments he made about autistic children and their parents, while almost in the same breath accusing parents of asthma sufferers of encouraging their children to fake it to get government funding. That campaign was somewhat effective; many radio stations dropped Savage's show, and many advertisers--some of whom were unaware that their brands were being represented during such an intolerant blowhard's program--insisted that their ads be pulled.
Fast forward to Rush Limbaugh's recent comments regarding Sandra Fluke, whom he couldn't even bother to name correctly. This young woman testified before Congress about how birth control helps with women's health issues, such as preventing ovarian cysts, but Rush, in his willful, obnoxious ignorance, demonized Ms. Fluke by saying she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford the birth control. His diarrhea of the mouth continued by calling her a slut because "we are paying for her sex" (even though the birth control would be funded by private insurance, not tax money), that she was a slut, and that she should post videos of her sexual encounters on the Internet for all of us to see. What a disgusting individual.
Limbaugh has been no stranger to disparaging women. Any women whose politics disagree with his are labeled "Feminazis". There's more, but quite frankly, I have avoided listening to his show since he was on television. Back then, I remember him calling Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog". The girl was twelve. Come on, man.
In any case, I thought about doing the same with Limbaugh as I did with Savage, but a great many people were on it before I decided to listen to his nonsense to find out who advertises on his show. I'm glad--I can't stand listening to the idiot. It's bad enough that I would go to sites as a consultant and be forced to hear his lies, bigotry, and misogyny as I worked, but to voluntarily do it... In any case, he has lost 104 advertisers, and most of his ad slots are filled with public service announcements for the time being. I truly hope this was his career-ender.
I need to take note of an objection people are making now, which was also made when I supported getting Michael Savage's advertisers to drop him: people made it about free speech, and accused me of being against freedom of speech for my condemnation and subsequent campaign on this blog. Bill Maher even went so far as to voice his objection to people "being made to disappear" when they say something offensive. I can understand why Bill would have this objection, and I agree with him on most points, but on this point, he's dead wrong. Sorry, but this issue isn't about freedom of speech. Nobody has the inherent right to be paid for speech. Everyone has the right to not have their speech inhibited by law. No one is advocating for a law getting rid of Rush Limbaugh or keeping him off the air. However, people are exercising their freedom of speech to condemn the man and persuade his corporate sponsors to drop him like a bad habit. What, are his sponsors to be forced to continue to associate their brands with his intolerance? What does it say about a company that supports this pig with their advertising dollars when they employ women who most likely use birth control themselves? Whose insurance plans include it, not to advocate their promiscuity, but to help them prevent problems like overly heavy menstruation, ovarian cysts, and other gynecological problems? And yes, birth control also prevents pregnancy; married couples ought to be able to be intimate without worrying about having more children than they want. Single women ought to be able to have sex without worrying about unintended pregnancy, as well. Without going into the sexual pressures and inequality women face in a world where men who are promiscuous are considered studs, rather than man-whores, the pregnancy and the other health issues birth control prevents actually save companies money while helping women.
To be completely fair to Bill Maher, the argument must be made that corporate sponsorship shouldn't mean that people should have to watch everything they say. So often, corporate sponsors will refuse to support a controversial or cutting edge program because they don't want their brands associated with the views expressed on them. However, television and radio entertainment are businesses, and as such, the money they receive is on the whim of those who pay. It's just reality, no matter how much it sucks in some cases. Many advertisers will support controversial shows because they get ratings--but as Maher himself said, let's not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance; advertisers especially shouldn't tolerate--and with their their financial influence, subsidize and perpetuate--intolerance. Limbaugh is a glaring example of it, and I, for one, am glad that many advertisers will no longer subsidize his hate speech.
Some time ago, I helped the campaign to get rid of Michael Savage's sponsors because of what he said about autism. I listened to his show to find out who they were, then I posted them here and wrote to them individually about the horrible comments he made about autistic children and their parents, while almost in the same breath accusing parents of asthma sufferers of encouraging their children to fake it to get government funding. That campaign was somewhat effective; many radio stations dropped Savage's show, and many advertisers--some of whom were unaware that their brands were being represented during such an intolerant blowhard's program--insisted that their ads be pulled.
Fast forward to Rush Limbaugh's recent comments regarding Sandra Fluke, whom he couldn't even bother to name correctly. This young woman testified before Congress about how birth control helps with women's health issues, such as preventing ovarian cysts, but Rush, in his willful, obnoxious ignorance, demonized Ms. Fluke by saying she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford the birth control. His diarrhea of the mouth continued by calling her a slut because "we are paying for her sex" (even though the birth control would be funded by private insurance, not tax money), that she was a slut, and that she should post videos of her sexual encounters on the Internet for all of us to see. What a disgusting individual.
Limbaugh has been no stranger to disparaging women. Any women whose politics disagree with his are labeled "Feminazis". There's more, but quite frankly, I have avoided listening to his show since he was on television. Back then, I remember him calling Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog". The girl was twelve. Come on, man.
In any case, I thought about doing the same with Limbaugh as I did with Savage, but a great many people were on it before I decided to listen to his nonsense to find out who advertises on his show. I'm glad--I can't stand listening to the idiot. It's bad enough that I would go to sites as a consultant and be forced to hear his lies, bigotry, and misogyny as I worked, but to voluntarily do it... In any case, he has lost 104 advertisers, and most of his ad slots are filled with public service announcements for the time being. I truly hope this was his career-ender.
I need to take note of an objection people are making now, which was also made when I supported getting Michael Savage's advertisers to drop him: people made it about free speech, and accused me of being against freedom of speech for my condemnation and subsequent campaign on this blog. Bill Maher even went so far as to voice his objection to people "being made to disappear" when they say something offensive. I can understand why Bill would have this objection, and I agree with him on most points, but on this point, he's dead wrong. Sorry, but this issue isn't about freedom of speech. Nobody has the inherent right to be paid for speech. Everyone has the right to not have their speech inhibited by law. No one is advocating for a law getting rid of Rush Limbaugh or keeping him off the air. However, people are exercising their freedom of speech to condemn the man and persuade his corporate sponsors to drop him like a bad habit. What, are his sponsors to be forced to continue to associate their brands with his intolerance? What does it say about a company that supports this pig with their advertising dollars when they employ women who most likely use birth control themselves? Whose insurance plans include it, not to advocate their promiscuity, but to help them prevent problems like overly heavy menstruation, ovarian cysts, and other gynecological problems? And yes, birth control also prevents pregnancy; married couples ought to be able to be intimate without worrying about having more children than they want. Single women ought to be able to have sex without worrying about unintended pregnancy, as well. Without going into the sexual pressures and inequality women face in a world where men who are promiscuous are considered studs, rather than man-whores, the pregnancy and the other health issues birth control prevents actually save companies money while helping women.
To be completely fair to Bill Maher, the argument must be made that corporate sponsorship shouldn't mean that people should have to watch everything they say. So often, corporate sponsors will refuse to support a controversial or cutting edge program because they don't want their brands associated with the views expressed on them. However, television and radio entertainment are businesses, and as such, the money they receive is on the whim of those who pay. It's just reality, no matter how much it sucks in some cases. Many advertisers will support controversial shows because they get ratings--but as Maher himself said, let's not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance; advertisers especially shouldn't tolerate--and with their their financial influence, subsidize and perpetuate--intolerance. Limbaugh is a glaring example of it, and I, for one, am glad that many advertisers will no longer subsidize his hate speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)