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.

2012: No, this isn't about the apocalypse

With 2011 quickly coming to a close, the GOP still does not have any semblance of a front-runner for the 2012 election. Every week, one of them is doing something absolutely ridiculous. Rick Perry put out that ridiculous ad three weeks ago, Gingrich is under fire because he's been claiming all along his wife wanted that divorce, and I'm not going to get started on Rick Santorum because I'm still too embarrassed about the fact that he was once allowed to represent my state.
So, I thought now would be a good time to take a look at the pros and cons of the Obama administration. Has this been the best presidency the country has ever seen? No, but I wouldn't say it's the equivalent to James Buchanan either (once again, why does Pennsylvania have to make such a terrible name for itself in the world of politics?).

Obama came into office after the economy was pooped on by previous administrations. Clinton managed to create a budget surplus by cutting 1/3 of the military; Bush ruined it by sending troops to one out of every three countries.* The Clinton administration allowed sub-prime lending and gave out a mortgage to everyone who could say "Excuse me, sir, I'd like to buy a house," and then SUDDENLY THE MARKET COLLAPSED BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO WERE MAKING $1,000 A MONTH HAD MORTGAGES FOR TWICE THAT MUCH. SHOCKING.
So then Obama bailed out the banks and the failing corporations. ...that probably would not have been my first choice. The results were mixed and we're still faced with high unemployment and I'm probably going to have to go to school for another three years to accrue tens of thousands of dollars of more debt so I can make more than $30,000 a year if I were to step out into the working world after I got my bachelor's degree.
Living the American dream.
Long and short of it: The economy's downfall wasn't Obama's fault, but he isn't doing the best job fixing the problem.

Obama said he was going to revolutionize health care. NAZI! America cried. SOCIALIST PIG! He managed to raise the age college kids can stay on their parents' health insurance, and it will shrink the donut hole in health care costs for the elderly. It increased Medicaid coverage, and expanded coverage to 32 million Americans who didn't have insurance-- that's over 10% of the population
How terrible of him!

Obama said he'd get the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. He did. He repealed DADT, and he's currently working on DOMA.

It's also important to keep in mind that nothing is passed without Congress' consent, which is hard to come by with a majority of the opposite party in the House of Representatives. Some people think this is because of dissatisfaction with Obama's administration. While this may be true, statistics have shown that the party with the executive in power tends to have a much lower turnout at mid-term elections, usually causing a shift of power in Congress in either one or both chambers. 

That's not to say he hasn't done some things wrong. I mean, the whole bailout thing was a flop, he just signed a bill that can detain American citizens indefinitely without cause (I found an article on it here, however they seem a bit like rabid wolves and their words should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I encourage everyone to do their own research on the bill-- I still haven't read it.). He's also young in terms of politics, but he has some senior cabinet members that know what they're doing (HILLARY I'M LOOKING AT YOU).

So, as we look ahead to the 2012 elections, there are a few things to keep in mind.
1. Obama isn't the crappiest president ever
2. He is not the sole reason for unemployment
3. Please do not, under ANY circumstances, vote for Joe Pitts if you live in his district (more on that later)

I'm still not sure who I'm voting for. If Ron Paul becomes a more viable candidate I'll be looking into him more closely. My opinion on Obamaba changes about every thirty seconds. I'd probably just write-in myself if I were 35.

*this statistic on George Bush is grossly inaccurate. I only said it because it was a nice contrast. You know, numbers and semantics and all that.

Kim Jong is dead? ...I didn't even know he was ill!

Okay, okay, so I know that joke is more than over-done by now but I just had to. As I'm sure most of you are aware, Kim Jong-il is dead. In a more depressing turn-- which becomes less and less of surprise to me as I struggle every day against the ignorance of humanity as a whole- quite a few people don't know who he is. To clear up any confusion, he was the "supreme leader of North Korea," or, to the more cultured audience, "the funny talking marionette in Team America."

First, some history on Korea, though I'm not going to delve too far into the past as I'm not terribly familiar with Korean history prior to World War II. But, from my understanding, they were being routinely invaded and finally succumbed to Japanese colonial rule at the end of the 19th century. Japan forced hundreds of thousands of Korean men to fight for them in World War II, forced them to give up their national identities, the typical RUDE things countries tend to do after colonizing them (in 21st century terms, this is called "aiding" or "helping" a country).

Meanwhile, members of different party factions in China decided to help Korea out and show Japan who was boss. The Allied Forces, with about as much tact as they had in divvying up the European continent, decided that they'd give a chunk of Korea to the USSR for helping them out for approximately EIGHT DAYS in the fight against Japan. Naturally, the U.S. got the rest.

A civil war in China breaks out, North Korea helps out their bro's, everything is great. Except it wasn't. There were FILTHY COMMIES IN NORTH KOREA IN CAHOOTS WITH THE SOVIET UNION. Complete lack of foresight on behalf of the United States, if you ask me. And then those FILTHY COMMIES wanted to take over South Korea to reunite it in a writing, disgusting orgy of applied Marxist theory (which, boys and girls, cites communism as the beginning stage of society-- the USSR was socialist. But, for the sake of the misguided, I will continue to use the popular and improper term: "communist). And they just marched right in there.

The United States was displeased, to put it mildly. They brought it before the Security Council of the U.N., wishing for permission to engage and push the North Korean forces out.

"But the USSR would just veto it, surely! Then it could never be done because there wasn't complete approval by the permanent members of the Security Council!"

I'm glad you've brushed up on your UN procedures, you sly devil you, but the USSR was boycotting the Security Council because they were too busy throwing a temper tantrum over the fact that Taiwan was being recognized as China's official government in lieu of the communist regime in Beijing. That really came back to bite them in the butt.

And so the Korean War was fought fully sanctioned by the United Nations, and in 1953 an armistice was signed after two years of stalemate between the opposing forces. This established the Korean Demilitarized Zone between the two countries. South Korea begins to flourish; their GDP per capita was less than Ghana's in 1957 and by 2008 it was seventeen times that much.

And North Korea became that old lady that never leaves her house, but you KNOW if you ever went in there, there would just be cat shit all over the place. And that's where Kim Jong-il was in charge.

So why are people excited about this guy being dead? Well, for one, there was a famine in North Korea between 1995 and 1997 that killed 2.5-3 million people, according to North Korea. People are still suffering from starvation according to rare reports from people living inside the country. In 2007 Jong-il made an effort to solve this problem by breeding giant rabbits the size of dogs. A German farmer sent him a dozen to get things going, but Kim Jong-il thought better of it and just ate them all at his birthday dinner instead.

Cool.

I also found this little gem from CBS News:

"Official records reportedly show that Kim learned to walk at the age of three weeks, and was talking at eight weeks. While at Kim Il Sung University, he apparently wrote 1,500 books over a period of three years, along with six full operas. According to his official biography, all of his operas are "better than any in the history of music." Then there's his sporting prowess. In 1994, Pyongyang media reported that the first time Kim picked up a golf club, he shot a 38-under par round on North Korea's only golf course, including 11 holes-in-one. Reports say each of his 17 bodyguards verified the record-breaking feat. He then decided to retire from the sport forever."

I think the most aggravating part about the whole thing is that he got to be in charge of an entire country and I'll be lucky if I'm partner in a law firm.

Russia

If you've been following the news, you've probably seen coverage on the protests in Russia against Putin's regime. As if we needed to see any more of this on the news, right?

Wrong.

One of my areas of interest inside political science (my major) is international relations as well as international peace and conflict resolution, particularly throughout Europe. So, when Borders was going out of business, I went over to the nonfiction section and picked up as many books as I could on my areas of interest (this is coming to a point, I promise) and I picked up one with an interesting title: 12 Who Don't Agree: The battle for freedom in Putin's Russia. I hadn't really heard anything about Russia outside of a jesus cult I used to belong to-- so obviously I didn't credit them as trustworthy. So, I brought it to the beach for a bit of light reading. ...I felt the need to throw in a Harry Potter reference.

The book details 12 different people who are trying to raise the public's awareness of Putin's domineering administration and attempting to protest against his regime. Several times while reading the book I felt the need to go to the front cover to make sure it was non-fiction. I could not believe that this was actually happening and nothing was being done about it.

I did not know, for instance, that the only legal form of protest in Russia is when a lone person is holding a picket sign. However, the regime will often hire homeless or recruit young Putin supporters to approach the protestor and joining them just long enough for the police to arrest them. They are then detained for a week.
Protests that are approved by the government will be cracked down on by police. It ends up with the unwarranted brutality seen at the Occupy movement protests, except in Russia there's no public outcry because none of it is covered by the press. And that is what finally brings me to my point.

Russia today is no fan of journalists. In fact, Russia is one of the deadliest place for journalists in the world, with over 200 journalists being killed between 1993 and 2009, and the majority of these deaths have been homicide. Anna Politkovskaya's murder garnered international attention in 2006 after numerous attempts on her life were made.

The press has been systematically bought out and silenced by the Russian government, and that is what makes this coverage so impressive. The fact that tens of thousands of people are not only marching through the capital, AND are receiving attention from the press, proves that Russia is moving in a direction that is more just in the treatment of its citizens. (I mean, I'm still a little scared posting this, because in July 2006, "the upper chamber of the Russian parliament - the Federation Council - approved a law which permits the Russian president to use the country's armed forces and special services outside Russia's borders to combat terrorism and extremism." -the full article is here. But still, progress is progress.)


...I'm okay with the political turn my blog is taking.

A rebuttal to Rick Perry's campaign atrocity

Originally, I was planning on writing about why I enjoy pretending that all of the girls in every show I watch/book I read are secretly together, but I came across a video that made me so incredibly furious that I have to talk about it.

Rick Perry's Strong campaign video

Judging from the dislikes (since the view count itself is glitching), quite a few people have already seen it. The transcript of the audio is as follows for easier dissection:

"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."

Perry is shown walking around in a Carhart and a belt buckle that could be considered a lethal weapon in a wooded area in an effort, I can only assume, to bring home his "I'm just a good old boy from a small town in Texas" uh... charm.

I'm not one to belittle people due to their level of education. Some people aren't cut out for it. But when someone who graduated with a cumulative 2.5 GPA with a bachelor's degree in ANIMAL SCIENCE decides they want to be the driving force behind the largest military force and economy in the world, I'm a bit hesitant.

Anyway, the content of the video.
"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."
The fact that he opens the video with this statement gives me heartburn. This is nothing more than religious propaganda. Gays openly serving in the military is an issue? It's funny that this man, a member of the Republican party, has backed DADT publicly and come out with this video. Why is it funny? According to the Government Accountability Office, approximately $52,000 was spent on each investigation and expulsion over six years. In that time, over $193 million was spent in an effort to remove gay members of the military. Aren't the Republicans for cutting costs at every turn?

Money obviously isn't the issue; it's the fact that homosexuality is allegedly forbidden in the bible (I'd encourage anyone reading this to watch For the Bible Tells Me So if they haven't already, it's a wonderful documentary). As for students openly celebrating Christmas and praying with schools, I know firsthand that this is not an issue. The ban on mandatory prayer in public schools, which are funded by the government, is due to something called the First Amendment of the Constitutions, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

My friends prayed before lunch at school, there was a Wednesday morning bible study that was steadily attended by over fifty students a week. When it comes to being christian in the public school system, there isn't a problem. The only time people face problems with faith in schools is when they're not christian. At my high school there was a "holiday" door decorating competition, the politically correct word just used not to step on any toes. Everyone's doors were decked out with Christmas trees and stockings and pictures of Santa Claus. My homeroom (the gifted one, because I feel the need to bring that up in a sad attempt to make myself feel intelligent) was the only one who attempted to include other holidays, and we never won, not by a long shot. Obama, along with the rest of the Democratic party, are not attempting any kind of war on religion. It's quite the opposite, in fact. They're just hoping to include more faiths.



As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion.


I find this interesting given the article I recently read by the LA Times. The Air Force Academy recently created a pagan chapel in order to be more inclusive of all faiths. Maybe Governor Perry means "war on ending religious discrimination." If that's the case, I definitely see him ending it. Perry fails to realize that the margin he is pandering to is on the decline; in a survey done by Trinity College, adults identifying as Christian fell 10% between 1990 and 2008, with one out of every five respondents "failing to indicate a religious identity." The ultra-conservative views Perry is reaching out to are constantly on the decline. To further quote the study, "the 2008 findings confirm the conclusions we came to in our earlier studies that Americans are slowly becoming less Christian and that in recent decades the challenge to Christianity in American society does not come from other world religions or new religious movements (NRMs) but rather from a rejection of all organized religions."
Obama is not conducting any war on religion, Mr. Perry. America is coming to this conclusion entirely on its own.