Never mind the fattie in New Jersey, I have bigger fish to fry

Yeah, yeah I'm angry the human compost machine vetoed gay marriage in New Jersey. But that seems to me like more of a perpetuation of the inevitable, given that polls in Jersey show it'll pass if left up to popular vote.

An article popped up on my facebook feed this evening and, as always, I did a little investigation. Some may call me suspicious; I just like to think of it as someone telling me the sky is falling. I'm still going to look outside to make sure. The title? "Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal."

Sounds a little extreme, right? So, I go to look for the amendment, and it turns out it's shorter than the article itself. The search for the amendment only stays live for thirty minutes before you have to search for it again (it's fairly easy, you can do it here). I'll outline some of the text here.   

"Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."

So... people aren't allowed to protest around protected buildings or grounds? A little rude, well, actually, very rude, but it makes sense, right?
...if you've ever been to Washington D.C., I'm sure you've seen people camped outside the Capitol building picketing this or that. Now,  the Capitol Building is not a restricted building or grounds within the context of this bill.
However, if anyone in that building has protection of the Secret Service, that automatically enacts these rules.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure engaging in physical violence is against the rules from everywhere from daycare to Phillies games, so I'm not sure what the point is in outlining that in this amendment.

So, let's look at this subsection b to see how they're punished, shall we?

"(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case."
 

I'm struggling finding this section 2118, but what is more important here is that there is that anyone who transgresses this law faces a fine or up to one year of imprisonment. This preventing of "ingress and egress?" That means entering and leaving buildings. So people who knowingly interrupt people's entering/leaving the White House or a building that contains someone protected by the Secret Service could be potentially arrested, fined, and imprisoned?

Oh, okay.

"knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;" 

This definition is loose for a reason. On February 16, Pro-Life demonstrators were arrested outside the White House for protesting. Protesting? Hm... that reminds me of something...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, what you're telling me is that I have a right to assemble, and that Congress cannot make any law that inhibits that right... and that Congress is in the process of passing a bill that prohibits just that?
That's not the only document allowing the right to assembly. It's also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20) and the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 15).

People who protest are people who typically do not hold majority opinion (or if they do, it's not been enacted into law-- *cough* gay marriage in New Jersey *cough*).
I'm not sure if you ever heard of this guy, James Madison, but he wasn't a fan of the majority trampling all over everyone, in fact he wrote about it once, in an essay called Federalist 10. It was included in a collection of papers from Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, which detailed how they wished to shape the new government after the clear failure of the Articles of Confederation (spoiler alert: these ideas are incorporated into the constitution). Madison writes:

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

He speaks of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority," that is, the tyranny of the majority. In simpler terms, Madison feared that those who held the positions of power who were part of the majority would use their positions to enact their will upon the rest and stifle opposition.

It's exactly what's happening now.

How can the candidates running for office claim to want to go back to the Constitution, when their political comrades are systematically dismantling everything for which it stands? First, they pass the Indefinite Detention Bill, effectively pooping on habeas corpus, and now they're blowing their nose with the First Amendment.

Civil liberties are not a joke, but they certainly seem to be amongst the politicians in Washington.

Gerrymandering

My post today actually has something to do with my last one (continuity? Glee writers, take some notes).
When we last spoke, I had something to say about Joe Pitts. Being the silly person that I am, I neglected to refer to the redistricting lines drawn up after the 2011 Census-- Pennsylvania lost a seat in the House of Representatives, going down to 18. Due to this, in addition to movement of population, the congressional district lines needed to be re-drawn.
Oh, and re-drawn they were.
Today we're going to talk about gerrymandering. It's when district lines are altered to better suit political parties, by drawing them around pockets of voters to ensure they're getting the votes they need to stay in office.
I'm under the impression that it's one of the things ruining the political system of the United States. These lines are being moved around to suit the legislators, with absolutely no concern for the constituents. Before they were re-drawn, my district consisted of the entirety of my county, a very rural area, the lower half of Chester County, also fairly rural, and a tiny chunk of Berks County.
The district of which I am a part of now? It spans five counties. It includes a small chunk of Lancaster, areas outside of Reading, an hour and fifteen minutes northeast of where I live, and then sprawls over to the east to where my family lives, over an hour and a half away. I encourage you to play around with this website, because it shows you how freaking ludicrous the whole thing is.
The way its drawn up now, my representative will be the face of a pocket of Amish farmland, areas of the Main Line, one of the richest areas on the east coast, suburbs in Montgomery County, and some areas outside of Philadelphia that are full of lower-income families.
How the HELL is anyone supposed to come up with ideas to represent that kind of area? How do you choose what legislation to support? WHY IS THIS OKAY.

Short post is short. I'm too angry.

The Devil Inside

This post is not about the exorcism film that has an incredible 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. Oh, no, no, no. This is about a much more tangible evil, one that my peers come in contact with on a regular basis without a clue (this is also not about radon).
This, my friends, is about the Congressional Representative of the 16th district of Pennsylvania, representing Lancaster County, as well as a large chunk of Chester and a sliver of Berks (this was as of the 2000 Census). Luckily for Pitts and the rest of the Republicans in Pennsylvania, the district lines had the living shit gerrymeandered out of them once again, making six seats safer, and combining two Democratic districts into one! But don't tell the Republicans that they're being unfair, boys and girls. People who are party of the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious majorities really don't like hearing about when they're stepping on other people's toes. They feel like they're being attacked! :(

His name is Joe Pitts. Good old Joe has a 100% approval rating from the Christian Coalition, the American Conservative Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Joe has a 0% approval rating from Public Citizens Congress Watch, the Human Rights Campaign, the Children's Health Fund, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Planned Parenthood, The National Farmer's Union, the United Fresh Produce Association, Americans for the Arts Action Fund, Citizens for Tax Justice, The American Liberty Association... there's a comprehensive list of all his scores here.

"So what, Colleen? He doesn't feed into the godforsaken liberal agenda! blahblahblahblahblah"
Okay, you've got me there. Pitts is a conservative's conservative, his voting record speaks for itself.

It should be no surprise that he does so well in Lancaster County, a forsaken wasteland of Amish farms sprinkled with trailer parks and scores of pregnant high schoolers. Speaking from 13 years of experience, Jesus is pretty much the only thing going for this place.

Joe is a bad, bad man. He belongs to The Fellowship, who sponsor the annual National Prayer breakfast. They've been up to some pretty nasty shenanigans lately. Uganda has been throwing around the idea of giving homosexuality the death penalty (it's already illegal) and you will NEVER GUESS where this idea came from. You want a hint?

When Bush was in office he appropriated $15 billion for sex education in foreign countries. One of the lucky winners was Uganda. Joe decided to redirect a lot of the money that was supposed to go toward sex education and put it toward abstinence education. This led to an evangelical revival in the country, and, subsequently, condom burnings. 

And this is how a country whose number of HIV positive people went from declining to doubling in an incredibly short period of time. 

yes, I just used memegenerator. Judge me all you like.

Shortly thereafter, a man from one of those 'I CAN MAKE YOU UNGAY' camps went on a little book tour around Uganda, preaching all about the evils of homosexuality and how it ruins every aspect of everyone's life. Ever. (do you want to guess who sent him over there? Hm? Any ideas?)

And that was when the bill was introduced to give homosexuality the death penalty. Additionally, if you knew of homosexual conduct and the officials find out that you're not going to report it, you get slapped with several years in prison and a hefty fine.(I wrote a really crappy paper on this if you want to read more. Or, you know, you could google it).

If that's not enough for you, Joe Pitts "unwittingly" received thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the Pakistani military. Their agenda was to tilt U.S. policy against India's control of the Kashmir region (NY Times article here). Strangely enough, Pitts traveled to India shortly thereafter to broker peace talks between India and Pakistan, and introduced a resolution for Bush to create a "special envoy" to help negotiate peace.
...but he didn't have any idea where that money came from.
He has since donated an equivalent amount to charities.

So far, he is running unopposed in the 2012 election. If anyone who reads this happens to be a United States citizen who is over 25, please run against him. I'll give you my whole piggy bank. And write your campaign speeches. They'll be snarky and fantastic.