I used to have a lot of respect for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They have helped women by the millions in the goal of reducing breast cancer by providing means to make sure each and every women gets a regular breast exam for early detection. I’ve participated in the walk they hold each year here in Salt Lake to show and give my support to this cause.

With the recent events that have unfolded, I have lost a large amount of respect for them. Not that they can’t help women anymore, but for putting politics before their foundation’s mantra: To rid the world of breast cancer and to never have another case of a woman with breast cancer.

But Nancy Brinker stated their shocking decision to not fund Planned Parenthood was not a political move. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

If you have to come out and say your decision wasn’t political, with your main VP Karen Handel having a history of political service and many statements against Planned Parenthood, not to mention Rep. Cliff Stearns R-FLA and his investigation into Planned Parenthood and where their funding goes – which was the basis for the defunding move, then you might have wanted to wash your hands first.

Passing this off as non-political and using the “they are under investigation” excuse, then why not also announce you are no longer funding Penn State. They appear to have their hands full of federal investigators at this time.

In trying to interpret Nancy Brinker’s defense, it all fell apart a few days later when they decided to re-define their defunding of Planned Parenthood with the added detail that the organizations now need to be “criminal and conclusive” and not simply under investigation, before they quit sending them money. Penn State, you are safe for now. And so is Planned Parenthood, obviously.

With millions ready to participate in their annual cancer walk, the backlash and lack of support could have been devastating financially. Of course, they might have already lost the support of many, like myself. But maybe this was all they had and we just need to weather the political storm.

Divided Over Stem Cells

Wait a minute… let’s take a look at their history of limiting what type of funding they give to those who do work on stem cell research. Pretty much following the exact same criteria that President Bush had for what types of stem cells could be funded, the Komen group refuses to fund these research centers. Again, not taking into account all religious and moral arguments about “you are killing a life,” if your goal is to rid every woman of cancer, don’t you think you would want to broaden your methods? And while I can understand some moral reservations, the idea of rejecting the majority of stem cell research on these grounds is questionable, in my opinion.

Stepping Down

And with the most recent news of Karen Handel stepping down as VP of this foundation, we have followed the fall out and downfall of this group that does so much for the health of women. So do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Of course not. Maybe now with some house cleaning and licking it’s wounds, the Komen Foundation can now get back to focusing solely on it’s main goal of fighting breast cancer.

But to be honest, it’s going to take this once ardent supporter some time to gain their trust again. Until then, I will be donating directly to Planned Parenthood.

Here’s an itemized list of things that Prop 8 in California has accomplished for their citizens since it passed by 52% of the vote in November 2008:

• Divided residents of the Golden State pretty much in half.
• Spent millions of dollars on legal fees, posters, lost work time, police force staffing for public protests – just to name some of the costs
• Took those costs away from services that are beneficial to all citizens like police protection for real crimes being committed, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, job creation efforts – just to name a few.
• Divided families that were forced to choose between their gay or lesbian child or their belief that same-sex marriage would be the modern day Armageddon that destroyed the universe.
• The number of other manufactured lies that clever writers created to enshrine their narrow-minded beliefs about gays and lesbians.
• Reduced revenues for weddings, divorces, marriage license fees and other revenue generating activities that heterosexuals already contribute to as tax-paying citizens of the state.
• Donated hours and hours of producing ads, posters, protests, etc… that could have been spent towards helping the less fortunate, the less abled and those that needed real help in improving their lives.
• Efforts towards completely erasing inequality decreased instead of increasing and removing the divide that our country has a history of for centuries.

Looking Forward

Now that this decision has come down, it moves to the Supreme Court, where the following will happen:

• More division in the citizens of California
• More money spent on legal fees
• More families divided apart
• Increased police support for further public gatherings and protests
• More time before loving couples can be legally married to each other
• Increased hate and bigoted attitudes towards gays and lesbians

Seth MacFarlane said it best today on Twitter:

Prop 8 architects: Every civil rights battle is eventually won by the oppressed party. Save your hundred mil and buy some Bud platinum.

He’s right. History shows those who oppose granting equality and civil rights to others eventually lose their battle. We’ve spent years fighting against women and blacks. But in the end, they eventually were recognized and granted civil rights… marriage rights, even. So it shall be for the gays and lesbians of this country. There’s a long battle ahead still, but history is on our side.

Yesterday, I participated in the online protest against SOPA and PIPA. This is what my page looked like to visitors that landed on the main URL of www.banalleakage.com:

Banal Leakage’s page for 1/18/12

I chose that image because it’s one that could be used to shut down a site/domain without much notice. I mean, with a name like Banal Leakage, it’s possible someone could have issue with it [besides the general structure of the name itself], think some link I used belongs to them and without even talking to me first, complain loud enough and take me down. Am I up all night worried that will ever happen? Nope. But I don’t want shoddy legislature with a gray area of due process giving it a better chance of happening.

webOS Internals’ page for 1/18/12

This is why the web’s biggest players came out in full force. Was it effective? Well, the web sites for Senate and Congress for each elected official were getting slammed and many were down most of the day. Three of them pulled their names off as co-sponsors of the bills. The general populace of the web is now more learned of SOPA and PIPA. Over 4,000,000 signatures were collected by Reddit. I would say that’s quite an effective list.

Wikipedia’s page for 1/18/12

This fight is not over. And while certain provisions of the bill have been changed, altered or removed, the bill is still very flawed in how it plans to fight piracy. I am against piracy on many levels and very much for owners of media and copyrighted material for getting their monetary compensation for their work. Yes, I admit to visiting the torrents here and there, but my intent is always to become legit with the media I plan to own. As I venture into media distribution myself, I know there will be items taken without proper payment. That’s going to happen regardless of how many web sites the government shuts down. The goal is to get your media into the hands of people at a reasonable price and without the hassle of DRM and other hinderances that prevent a great user experience.

And SOPA and PIPA do not accomplish this task. Their purpose is not concerned with any user experience. Their purpose is to prevent criminal intent and illegal forms of delivery. There are other methods that will can and be more effective. Working together as a collective group, the government and the tech industry can find the best solutions for protecting the property owner as well as the design and flow of information on the internet.

Just like Colorado in 2008 and 2010, we can now add Mississippi to the short list of states that are attempting a very radical form of making abortion illegal. It’s called Personhood. And just like in Colorado, this measure was defeated in Mississippi during this recent general election.

It basically takes the rule of giving a fertilized egg of a woman legal rights, in case it’s existence is eliminated in some type of aborted process. The main focus is abortion, but it also happens to include an actions that include some types of birth control and miscarriage, which in many cases, is out of the woman’s control. Yes, those who are in support of such a measure say legal challenges to birth control and miscarriages will never happen. And they do make mention to exclude a condom as an accessible form of birth control. [shockingly surprised] But the vagueness of how the measure is written is very broad and not really specific in terms of what exactly gets enforced. The very idea of birth control like The Pill, prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus wall. It’s a similar process for someone who uses an IUD.

This should scare any woman who wants to keep control over her reproductive system – without government interference. I get why there are people that are passionately against abortion. And there are a good number of people that are pro-choice that are ok with restrictions on abortions. But this major step in gaining more government control over a woman’s choice is uncalled for.

Color me confused. I thought the move of the ultra conservative movement was to reduce and limit government in our lives, not increase it. What’s next.. giving this zygote a Social Security Number? I’m not trying to make this into a slippery slope, but the very idea of giving rights to an egg opens up an inalienable list of protections and rights that normally are afforded to a birthed human being.

Regardless, for now, we can breath a sigh of relief. At least until the next time this Personhood movement rears it’s ugly head in another state. Until then, follow the links below to educate yourself on the consequences of this movement.

Links

No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control
Panel Recommends Free Birth Control; Anti-Abortion Groups Flip Out
Mississippi ‘Personhood’ Law Could Cause Legal Mayhem, Experts Warn
Then They Came for Your Birth Control
The next front in the abortion wars: Birth control

But all is not lost. There are other Perry’s out there that would make a better candidate. Let me present them to you.

Katy Perry

Katy Perry

What American wouldn’t want a candidate that can shoot whipped cream from their boobs? All we need is some strawberry pie and a promise of confetti for everyone and we’ve got a candidate that won’t need permission to use the song “Firework” cause she sang it.

Joe Perry

Joe Perry from Aerosmith

The glue that holds Aerosmith together. With Steve Tyler doing his own thing and making smarmy comments on American Idol, this guitarist can prove he’s got what it takes to “put the band back together” Exactly what this country needs.

Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry

Um, No!

Perry (from Phineas and Ferb)

Perry the Platypus

If the Olympics can have a cartoon mascot to unite the world together, why not a cartoon as the leader of the free world? I say a vote for this Perry is a ticket to success. Or at least make people feel better about the platypus.

Steve Perry

Steve Perry taken in 2009

Long since retired as the lead singer of Journey, Steve may be an option, but I have my doubts considering how much out of spotlight he’s been for a good 15 years now. Of course, that could all change if Gov. Perry decides to use “Don’t Stop Believin’” as his campaign song. Then Steve might just come out and declare his anger over such misuse of one of his songs.

But federal funding is already banned and has been for almost 35 years, due to the passage of the Hyde Amendment, more than three years after the Roe v. Wade decision. Not to mention that last year’s Health Care Reform Act also bans federal funds to be used for elective abortions.

But not all abortions are banned from federal funds. To those women that have become pregnant through rape or incest or in cases where the life of the mother-to-be is in danger of being lost, federal funds can and do pay for abortions. And even in these cases, it’s still a bothersome nuisance to the anti-abortion crowd that some of their tax dollars are going to pay for something they are against.

In 2010, Planned Parenthood received an estimated $317 million in federal tax dollars. In addition to abortions performed for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother [remember, the Hyde Amendment and 2010 HCRA prohibits federal funds for electable abortions], these tax dollars also provided pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling.

Supporters of this bill argue for those that don’t want their tax dollars being used for abortions. And if you are religious and/or have personal beliefs that oppose abortion, I most certainly can sympathize on some levels. They argue that any individual can come up with the money themselves to have the procedure done. But what if circumstances are such that something that was not their fault and there are not sufficient funds to cover an abortion? Planned Parenthood certainly has some private donors. And anti-abortion supporters, while still not happy about any abortions being performed regardless who pays for them, can’t stop private people from funding for those that seek a safe and legal place to have their pregnancy terminated.

Unplanned

But what about those children that are born instead of aborted? Unwanted, unplanned, conceived from a molestation, rape or abusive spouse or partner… regardless of how the woman became pregnant, abortion is a legal procedure that is, and should always be, left up to being the choice of the woman.

In none of these articles or arguments does it ever factor in the cost of a child born under these circumstances that may end up on some type of public assistance. I have heard several stories of children born into less than sufficient households where the amount of financial need [paid for by tax payers] throughout this child’s life is staggering. So if it’s money that’s of concern, why not also cut out programs that provide care for those children? If it’s really about where your tax dollars go to, then why stop at abortion? The average cost of an abortion at $350 vs. the average cost to of how much public assistance a child could receive [some average it's around $11,000/yr] shows quite the financial gap, when properly amortized.

Again, those that are pro-life will argue it was worth it to save an unborn child from abortion. Adoption is a valid option in these cases. And while adoption is used a lot, regardless of other legal options, it’s not always the most cost effective, as adoptions can take a considerable amount of money and time to complete. Granted, at little or no cost to the mother giving up the child, but still the adopting party needs to prove that they are responsible enough to raise a child.

But let’s say the mother doesn’t offer up her child for adoption and factor in what kind of life that child may end up having if it ends up staying with it’s biological parent. Hopefully, it will be a good one. But depending on the living conditions of that child, what if it turns to a life of crime? Or runs with the wrong crowd? Or experiences abuse from others? All speculation, yes. But remember, from the beginning, this child was not planned.

Cutting Off All Services

Mike Pence will argue that this bill will “close the loophole that has forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the nation’s leading abortion provider…”. But won’t this also mean that NO federal funds will go to any family planning services – including abortions done for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? In my reading of the bill, all funding to any family planning center that also happens to perform abortions, will be pulled. So in an effort to cut off Planned Parenthood, they also cut off funding to anyone under the Title X part of the Public Health Service Act that was originally designated by President Nixon for the purpose of low-income individuals and families that needed family planning services.

In an effort to cut off the nose to spite one’s face, this is a big blow to family health care. Nonsense, say those who support Pence. Just pay for the services yourself. Stop using public funds for something I don’t agree with. Go get a job and get health care. All valid options that not everyone may be able to have access to. But not every HMO plan you get from your employer covers all of the necessary procedures that a place like Planned Parenthood offers. Paying individually for each one of these services can add up for anyone, including those that are at or below the poverty income level in this country.

Contraception

And I’ve not specifically mentioned contraception and birth control, which also carries some levels of opposition by those who are also against any type of abortion. In the logical sense, preventing a pregnancy also prevents an abortion. Most get this, some refuse to [for varying reasons that boggle my mind]. And a place like Planned Parenthood provides counseling to those seeking options to prevent a pregnancy. While abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, controlling the collective public’s access to when they have sexual intercourse is impossible.

Summary

Regardless of my position, I get why people are against abortion. I have never met nor talked to anyone in my life that was pro-abortion. It’s not always the choice we would want for someone. But that’s not for us to decide. That’s the woman’s choice. And since 1973, it’s legal in just about every state and in varying forms and circumstances. And while some may not want their tax dollars going to pay for any abortion, there are some cases that exist where having the child isn’t always the best option. I know there are many zealots, politicians and religious fanatics [mostly male, I might add] that don’t agree, but you are not the ones carrying this child. Again, the woman is. And in the voice of those women that have had abortions and why they had them, I trust their words over any male trying to legalize and limit their opinions.

Cutting off all federal funding creates new issues, financial, emotional and physical, where an unwanted child is born to an environment that can’t properly raise and support the child, turning to the government for assistance. Which is where this argument comes full circle: tax dollars going for something you don’t agree with.

It’s expected that this bill will not pass the Senate, but if it does, President Obama has already promised to veto it. So a temporary sigh of relief for those relying on centers like Planned Parenthood for family planning, but it’s not the last time this will be an issue. And when it rears it’s head again, I hope that more will be willing to think for the needs of the living, not just the unborn.

Relevant Article Links

This Is What Pro-Life Means?

Defunding Planned Parenthood – Not a GOP Family Value?

Getting taxpayers out of the abortion business

Abotion Fuels Intolerant Thinking

• I do not place any direct blame on any of the rhetoric, images, terminology or analogies that have come from any of the politically-focused talking heads. These types of metaphors have been used for years and I’m certain that their public discourse in using these types of verbiage were never intended to translate to anything violent.
• The shooter, who has shown to have some instability, is the only one to blame. Period.
• While I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and not against anyone owning and possessing a firearm, I do not feel the original drafters of this amendment foresaw automatic and semi-automatic weapons as “the right to bear arms”
• Reasonable and moderate politicians like Rep. Gabrielle Giffords are the ones we need more of in office and seeing violent threats and acts committed against them does nothing to help further a sane and professional form of governing.
• I am glad that said shooter is still alive, instead of dead, ensuring he will be brought to justice. While it appears he was expecting his life to be taken, it was to the credit of a few brave bystanders that he was taken down before he had the chance to fulfill his “mission”
• It’s sad that a tragic event like this is sometimes what it takes to bring everyone together. Life is important to all, even to those that disagree. I hope we never lose this, but it would be better to reduce and eliminate these types of outbursts when it comes to uniting us as a collective nation.

All that being said, I do feel that the political rhetoric has divided this country more than it’s united us. We have become a people of “Us vs. Them” and one side feels like it needs to win in order to show the public that they have their best interests in mind. There are no winners, only losers. If any elected official is more concerned about winning re-election than serving the needs of those that re-elected them, then they need to get out of politics. When I see the sea of people at these rallys, are those people really expressing how they feel or simply just following the frenzied words of the speaker? I seriously doubt that someone who is unemployed is asking for a repeal of a national health care system that has the potential to provide them with health care while they are out of work. No reasonable person thinking logically would want that. Yes, going back to work should be their top priority, but until that happens and if something medically happens to them, it would be one less worry to know they can get the medical attention they need without having to be denied or rack up thousands in bills they can’t afford to pay. With concern for the aforementioned shooter and his reported state of mind, any of this division could have adverse affects. And given the reported history of his thoughts, words and actions, it’s hard not to connect him somehow to the divided rhetoric going on today.

Those reasonable and sound-minded gun owners are the ones I respect. They understand that the gun they own and carry should be used responsibly. Any firearm that has the capability of unloading a large number of rounds with a single trigger pull shouldn’t be part of a responsible gun owners arsenal. The single purpose for an automatic or semi-automatic firearm is to do a lot of damage in as little time as possible. I will never change my stance on this. There is no reasonable argument for any gun owner to make that would ever justify them to be packing this type of heat. SWAT teams, police force and other professionals are obviously exempted from this as they would be used professionally to reduce further carnage by a crazed person that is packing these over-powered weapons. Gun control to me isn’t inducing fears about the government taking your guns away. It’s reducing fears for the innocent that are affected by irresponsible people using these type of automatic firearms.

If we do not find a way to reduce the use of fear, fevered rhetoric, threats and violence to control the public discourse, we will lose our democracy and those elected officials that want to bring us together, working towards a better way of life for this country. While I am no fan of these fear-inciting political types, I wouldn’t mind hearing less of their dividing messages after this horrific tragedy. I want people to think for themselves instead of embracing each and every word that spews from these money-driven media mavens. And I include all sides of the political dividing spectrum: left right and in-between.

While we will never see an end to the crazed freaks of society that want their 15 minutes of criminal fame, I do feel that if we were more collective in our pursuit of a United States of America, we will see a reduction of them and their kind. And while some may not have been directly motivated by the voices of political sways, removing and reducing division can’t hurt to keep them out of the top stories in the media.

From my view, it appears that the best way to get elected is to dig up enough shit on the person you are running against and hope that enough of it sticks in the minds of the voters on Election Day to vote for the person slinging the shit. I call this creating a division. Why? Because you are not voting for the person who will properly represent you in government. You are voting for the person who told you that the other person has done too many bad things to want in office.

What happened to telling the people that you want to vote for you what you will do once you are elected? Why do you have to tear someone else down in attack ads and have them be your campaign platform? Seriously, I want to know what you will do to help reduce needless costs. I want to know what you will do to improve the streets and my safety. There has to be some talk about what you plan to do to ensure all people are treated equally under the law. I don’t give a fuck who you are running against, who they slept with or who they touched feet with in a bathroom stall.

Ok, that last part isn’t all true. I do read those stories and have to question that person’s morals and how they can be so hypocritical in their stances and how that differs what they do in their personal lives. I laugh at some of the gaffes that are publicly spoken that any reasonable person would question at saying during election season. And then there are the rebuttals at having to recant something you actually did years ago that you need to tell people you aren’t doing anymore. All of these do offer some entertainment and I admit that I have a chuckle or two when they are made public.

But in all honesty, I really do want my elected officials focused on doing their job. If they are going to be a mayor, I want them focused on what they plan to do as the mayor during their campaign. I don’t want to hear what the other person they are running against won’t do as mayor. Let’s stay positive and focused on your platform. If the other guy did something so bad, let their records, actions and statements bury them on election day and keep them out of office.

If every election campaign could be run like this, maybe we wouldn’t have the mudslinging contests be the main focus and we can wipe away the division that separates everyone and have those that take office or remain in office do what they promised in the days leading up to people filling the voting booths.

The only problem with this is that there is no chance in hell that these types of campaign tactics will never see a major change for many years. Why? Because it seems the general voting public wants to know more about the other person and what kind of bad and crazy shit they’ve done. They really don’t seem to care what the person they do vote for will do once they are elected. They care more about who campaigned for them, what they believe in personally and what religion they belong to. Oh, and a promise for lower taxes and less spending comes in dead last.

Seriously, is it too much to ask for a candidate that will be doing some type of balanced budget that they have some sort of experience doing that BEFORE they get elected? And what about this promise to lower taxes and reduce spending. Surely that would also apply to the large amount of money that gets funneled to them during their campaign. Why waste millions of dollars running for an office when one of their main focuses after getting elected will be to stop wasting money? To me, that doesn’t make sense. You want to get my vote? Figure out how to reduce the amount of money you spend trying to get elected and you won’t have to worry about returning the favors to the people you got money from. That’s a candidate I can get behind.

Again, this type of change isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Sure, there are candidates out there that are doing what I want, but they aren’t getting elected. Mostly due to that they don’t pander to the general public’s whims about who they pray to every night.

All I want is change in how people campaign. Focus your entire campaign on what you will do. Teach the mindless minions they need to care what you will do once elected. And then just maybe… maybe… we’ll see some real change we can all get behind – without being a divided mess of negative mindsets.

Ok, enough ranting here. What say you, my readers?

The recent US Supreme Court decision on extending 2nd Amendment rights to all cities and states, effectively removing most, if not all, local gun rights, gave me pause.

While I’m not a gun owner [Super Soakers don't count, do they?], I do support the right to own a gun [no semi-automatic or assault rifles, AK-47's and the like] and to use it for personal protection, harmless target practice or hunting. Even properly registered guns with a concealed weapon permit are ok by me, as long as the person packing heat has been trained and knows how to use the gun and plans to be responsible in their use.

I discussed this recent decision with a local gun rights supporter, who also happens to feel that state rights should not be trumped by federal rights. Yet, he supports this decision. I asked him about his conundrum and conflict:

• ME: “So you don’t want the feds to take away states rights, yet you support this decision?”
• HIM:“Yes.”
• ME: Asking a follow-up question, “So it’s ok when it’s something you agree with, but yet when the Supreme Court decides on something you don’t agree with, it’s not ok?”
• HIM: “Well, yes… er.. um.. I guess”

We didn’t discuss much after that, changing the subject to something generic ["Are you getting the new iPhone 4?"], but it made me think about this. Sure, there are some decisions that the court decides that I don’t agree with [the decision earlier this year, removing the limitation of corporations to financially participate in elections], but I really do try to keep an open mind about how some of these decisions are made, for the most part, trying to see how they would benefit others. The ultimate goal of the Supreme Court is to extend rights, not take them away. I’m waiting to see what the impact of this 2nd amendment decision will be before I weigh in with my thoughts, but would like to hear how others feel about this.

Comment away below.

Obviously, Arizona hasn’t grasped this concept when it comes to addressing illegal immigration.

I’ve been following this since Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the toughest immigration legislation in the country and thought I would post my thoughts on this subject.

My Stance

I am in full support of those that are living in this country and have been for years, to work towards being US citizens if they plan to stay here and make this country their permanent home. Especially if you are working here. Taxes are an important part of income generation for both states and the country as a whole. Roads get driven on daily. Parks gets played in often. Various social services like police, fire and health care are used. I’m all about being fair for all. If you take up residence and call a dwelling your home, you should be paying your fair share.

Those that come into this country and don’t contribute, you are doing legal residents a disservice. And I think something should be done to address this issue. Unfortunately, I don’t think Arizona’s knee-jerk law is going to do anything to help.

Elected officials have a problem and they want to solve it. That much most, if not all of us, can agree on. How they are going about it is where I disagree.

My friend in IT, Star Wars and Steely Dan shared this video on Twitter the other day. As I always try to keep an open mind about most things [Sorry Wayne, I will never switch back to Windows as my main computing platform], I clicked on the link and watched it.

Rep. Tom McClintock makes some valid points in this video, which is a response to a recent visit by Mexican President Felix Calderon. The first three and half minutes are spent explaining his stance, which I mostly agree with. It’s in the final 90 seconds is where Tom tends to be distracted and forgets to hear his own words.

Racial Enforcement

As Mr. Gascón has so very well stated in the following article, putting officers into the position of determining who is illegal and who isn’t without racial profiling is difficult. The entire creation of this legislation in Arizona came from the massive amount of people crossing the border from Mexico. This is not about a German citizen who lives in Arizona and hasn’t applied for citizenship yet. This is not about a Dutch resident who has lived in the state, working for the last several years. This law is squarely aimed at latinos and spanish-speaking individuals and trying to stop them from coming into the country illegally. And with this law, those are the people that will be stopped and asked for their papers the most. The only way Arizona can ensure there will be no racial profiling is if they stop each and every person and ask for their legal paperwork. Make no distinction between anyone. White, black, latino, asian, indian… you get stopped, you show your papers. That seems fair, doesn’t it? A lot of work, but with the way the law was worded and designed, it’s the only way for Gov. Brewer to keep her promise without sounding hypocritical.

Now I know some of you are saying, “What’s wrong with that? We need to defend our borders!” and others will say “They are taking their money from here and sending it home to Mexico” and “They don’t pay taxes and we are missing out on collecting that revenue” And I agree with those concerns and issues. As Rep. McClintock above said, we don’t want to close off immigrants from coming into this country, we just want them to become legal US citizens. I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is how this law is aimed at a specific race. Sure, it’s the biggest issue for Arizona, but there are better ways of enforcing and resolving this.

Hear Me Out

Back some years ago, The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was concerned about increased music piracy. Instead of embracing a new way of gaining customers, it took them to court and fined them for each illegally-downloaded song. Arizona is doing a similar tactic. Instead of finding a way to help those that are here illegally become legal, they are willing to fine them and place them in jail.

A RIAA lawyer sees someone with an iPod and thinks “How many pirated songs are on that?”

Those legislators that voted for this law see a latino and think, “Is that person here illegally?”

Divided We Stand

Legal US citizens that look, talk and act like those that the Arizona law hopes to label as illegal, have no need to fear of being deported. They just need to make sure they carry some form of legal documentation that proves they are legal citizens. But, they do have need to be concerned. If for some reason, there are those who enforce this new law that don’t heed to the governor’s repeated anti-profiling promise, these legal citizens will become tired of being asked for their papers, regardless of their public actions. I certainly don’t wish for that to happen, but with a long history of race divide in this country, it’s inevitable.

How do we avoid this? Repeal the law, rewrite it so that it removes the language about “reasonable suspicion” and focus the efforts on helping add more US citizens. Do this before more states, like Utah, become copycats and continue making that dividing line that much larger. This is after all, the United States of America, not the Divided Properties of North America.
]]> http://www.banalleakage.com/2010/05/24/profiling/feed/ 10 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ http://www.banalleakage.com/2010/03/21/what-if-we-did-nothing/ http://www.banalleakage.com/2010/03/21/what-if-we-did-nothing/#comments Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:50:40 +0000 martymankins http://www.banalleakage.com/?p=3015 As I write this, the House just passed the health care reform bill. It’s not the bill I would have liked to have seen passed [there were way too many compromises and it's structured differently than it should have been], but it’s a step in the right direction.

Critics say it’s not good to let government control our health care. Proponents say it provides needed competition to the private healthcare industry. Both sides will never come to an agreement, mostly due to political lines. But at some point, those without access to affordable health care should be taken care of. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say they need to be taken care of. Need? Why would they need to be cared for? Why should we pay for other’s health care? Everyone should fend for themselves. No government assistance. Just go to the doctor and get treated when you are sick.

So what would happen if we did nothing.

• Those that have no coverage would end up paying the entire bill each time they went to the doctor or hospital
• Those that can’t pay their bill may end up leaving a balance due
• The doctors and hospitals can’t write off every single debt
• They cover these losses by increasing their costs to those that are insured
• Each year, private insurance companies raise their rates, using the phrase “due to increased costs” as the main reason
• A human is no different than an automobile. It needs regular maintenance.
• Unlike an automobile, a human can’t simply be abandoned for another model that works
• For each child born into an uninsured family, the costs are increased
• The first years of a child’s health care needs are critical to ensure a healthy start to life
• Those that require certain prescriptions will go without if they had to pay full price
• Not every person that works is covered by a employer subsidized health care plan

I could go on with this list. The point I’m making here is this: One way or another, health care costs are going to go up. The private industry has no competition. They charge pretty much what they want, without much regulation to stop them. With a competitor, and with proper regulation, they will be forced to keep costs down. They can’t rape and pillage those that are covered. Those without coverage will have coverage. Instead of going without, they can be treated.

It does come at a cost. This isn’t going to be cheap. Those that fight for smaller government are completely against this. But yet, doing nothing will continue the monopoly and political slighting that goes on in the private health care industry today.

As I said above, this plan is not perfect. But if we waited for the perfect plan, we would never have one. You have to start somewhere and sometime. And that time is now.

This Sunday is one of the biggest days for advertisers. It’s Superbowl Sunday and people pay attention to the ads – sometimes more than the game itself.

One of the ads that will be shown is from the conservative group Focus on the Family. Their $2.5 million will buy them 30-seconds to tell the story of Pam Tebow and her son, Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow from the Florida Gators. The tag line of the ad is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life”, with the word abortion never being mentioned.

But whose version of Family are we celebrating with this ad?

The details have been told numerous times over the last month, but in summary, Pam was a missionary in the Philippines, pregnant with her son. She fell ill and was given the option by doctors to either continue with the pregnancy or abort it. Her choice is obvious and the focus on having a successful son in sports is celebrated.

Never mind that since 1930, abortion has been illegal in the Philippines and remains that way to current day. So in 1987, when Pam was pregnant with Tim, her doctor was recommending something illegal to her, according to her telling of the events as they played out. Also factoring into the decision was her belief system, which is obviously pro-life. So under logical thinking, Pam’s decision to both follow her beliefs and not break the law of the country she was in at the time, resulted in the birth of her son.

The birth of a child is to be celebrated, especially if it was planned. But not all pregnancies are planned. And the woman who becomes pregnant should be allowed the option of terminating her pregnancy, taking into consideration the legal status of abortion where she resides. But I’m not here to advocate abortion. Personally, I think it’s an option that I wish most women would not choose. I am not going to force my personal opinion on others. And neither should anyone else. That means no government, no religious person, no conservative organization, no right-wing radical or anyone that is passionate about their stance on abortion should take away the decision to abort a child away from any woman for any reason.

This makes me pro-choice, which some have re-labeled that to mean “pro-abortion”. Um. Read the above again if you are one of these people. Being pro-choice does not make someone pro-abortion. Neither should I, or anyone else that is pro-choice, be labeled a “baby killer”. The rules are simple. A woman makes her own reproductive decisions without involvement or interruption from anyone, with the exception of her doctor she is consulting with.

And being pro-choice shouldn’t be just some political stance or something that makes you feel better about yourself or a way to fit in better. If you are pro-choice, you need to really let the woman choose for herself, regardless of how you personally feel about the practice.

But when media people like Sally Jenkins from the Washington Post say they are pro-choice, labeling a group of people pro-abortion pretty much dilutes their announced stance. I really don’t believe there is anyone out there that is pro-abortion. Even women that choose abortion as an option are not skipping happily to the abortion clinic, smiles on their faces and exclaiming, “Yeah, I get to have an abortion today.” Abortion is a tough choice and it’s an emotional disconnect. Having talked to women that have had abortions before, it is a decision that was not easy for them to make.

No, these groups are more about not wanting the majority rule – regardless how specific or generic the message – to dominate the discussion of choice. Sure, Pam had a choice. She choose to have the baby. But at the same time, what was her decision doesn’t apply to every one else. This is called supporting the woman’s right to choose for herself.

Mad about the Ad?

So given all of that, CBS certainly should be allowed to pick and choose what ads they want shown on Superbowl Sunday. They are in the business to make money. But they also should be under scrutiny when they allow one ad based on content, yet reject an ad based on similar content rules they recently lifted. As a for-profit business, playing favorites while proclaiming they are not, will open up discussions on fairness in advertising. Allowing an ad promoting a general pro-life message, yet rejecting a gay dating service, at the same time airing ads with beer and boobs, their argument about “not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday” starts to lose credibility.

After everything I’ve said above, I’m ok with the ad being broadcast, but I do question several things. One, are women that watch the game and viewing the ad going to consider its message the next time they have sexual relations? Two, will this spur other companies to consider next year’s big game for placing their 30-second conservative message to the masses? And three, will CBS actually consider running other ads from the likes of gay dating services without using their standard “network broadcast standards” rejection message?

Only time will tell. For this pro-choice viewer, in the midst of the majority rule, I’ll be placing all of my bets on the underdog minority. Go Saints!

UPDATE

Here’s the Mancrunch ad that won’t air during the Superbowl: