unFocus

We in America have been at war with our public basically since our country’s founding. It is a ridiculous cycle in which one group of people (or several in some cases) is singled out as the enemy, and they are denied their rights. I refuse to believe that the Bill of Rights is a document that only guarantees the rights that are listed explicitly and only to those which the majority allows.

I believe that the rights of the people in this country (I am choosing not to use the word “citizen” intentionally) are far more extensive than that which is laid down for us in the documents. These are basic rights that cannot in any way be infringed upon, although we have seen fit to continually allow our government to do so, especially at war time when those rights become ever more important. Basic, as define by Merriam Webster means– 1:of, relating to, or forming the base or essence: FUNDAMENTAL, 2: constituting or serving as the basis or starting point. So it is reasonable to conclude that these rights are to be built upon and extended.

Therefore I argue that amendments to the Constitution such as those that grant blacks and women the right to vote are fantastic, that process was unnecessary and the strict requirements of an amendment only prolong the process. It is repetitive.
When interpreting the constitution there is no need to search for the rights of the people, or create a penumbra or shadow out of the first amendment. Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply that any rights not listed in the constitution are non- existent, nor does it state that those listed are the only rights to be protected. The peopele of the United States must fight legislation that acts upon that which limits our ability to live without overbearing government intrusion. We need to start holding elected officials accountable for laws they are enforcing against us, and the motives behind them must be carefully watched.

Our representatives should not be limiting our rights, but acting in ways which allow us to utilize and explore them in order to pursue happiness. The courts should also be playing the role of looking at legislation critically, and the rights of citizens should be considered worth protecting always, not just in cases of discrimination.

Even this level of protection of your rights is split up into levels of importance, women you are not at the top of this list, though you are on it, homosexuals, you are not on the list an are therefore not protected if you are discriminated against based on that particular characteristic. This structural concoction of a Supreme Court Judge is bogus….ALL people should be protected under equal protection, as we are all human and therefore equal under the law. We need to start preventing our legislatures from enacting laws in the first place that violate the rights of the people in this country.

How is it then that an entire class of people can be banned from obtaining a marriage license? How is it that there is not massive uproar? I have heard legal justifications that marriage is not a constitutional right, I feel that I have addressed this issue already. (Feel free to criticize my argument or strengthen it….I am still formulating, could use the help!) The other argument is that homosexuals are not a protected class. Well, that just doesn’t make any sense to me. You should not have to show a history of being discriminated against (which homosexuals have, by the way) when you are challenging a law that is presently discriminating against you. Okay… so it is ok for us to discriminate against you today, because it’s not like we have a history of doing it? C’mon, are they kidding?!
This article was published on MSNBC:

“A ruling barring New Paltz Mayor Jason West from performing same-sex marriages has been upheld by a state appeals court. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling preventing West and other officials in the Hudson Valley village from performing marriage ceremonies without licenses.

The court said West acted beyond his authority when he presided over 24 same-sex marriages in February 2004. West was sued by a village board member and a state Supreme Court judge later issued a restraining order stopping West from presiding over any more ceremonies.

West was among the first public officials in the nation to marry same-sex couples, following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. West was charged with violating the state’s domestic relations law, but the criminal charges were later dropped.”

This country is supposedly based on freedom and the pursuit of life liberty and happiness. How can that be the case if there is no presumption that we are free? All of us. How is it that we can possibly spread our freedom around the world, if we have no understanding of what that means?

Share This

Anderson cooper just gave to to a self contradulating Senator that was talking about all the great things that she and other polititians have been doing. In response Anderson Cooper basically told her to cut the crap, then described how he saw a dead woman’s body is being eaten by rats. Her response was to attempt to address his grevance, then move right on back to her talking points and thanked the president for his response to the emergency - and man did it ring hollow.

CNN video feed

Alternative Download Location

Update: the blog at www.crooksandliars.com is keeping pretty good score of who is saying what. It’s a good one to watch.

Share This

I’m sure that the responsible, reasonable people of the progressive movement, would rather not talk about politics, and media games, and so on during the crisis in New Orleans when there is so much real work to be done on the ground, but the right is hard at work, spinning the reasons for the lack of a response in that city, and writing the rhetoric that will frame this conversation for the next two years. The left, liberals, the progressive movement - whatever we call ourselves at the moment, need to get out in front of this, before it takes hold, and real questions of competence and accountability are quelled, before even being asked.

You can already see their chosen talking points about the crisis in New Orleans and the right’s response all over Fox News and other shock news outlets. First, they already have an enemy to focus attention on - the “looters,” drug addicts and burning helicopters. And as far as they are concerned they are the responsible for the mess in it’s entirety. Next we have the beginnings of the reasoning for why nothing was done sooner - that some laws prevented a quicker response - and have even had the nerve to suggest that everything that could have been done has been done up till now - even while Bush was on vacation for two days after the beginning of all of this.

All the while, they ignore the facts - that the people in charge (save Mayor Ray Nagin, who was out pulling old ladies from their attics) from the governor of LA to the president of the United State, George Bush, chose early on to focus their attention on the “looters,” who at the time were a minor part of the problem. They chose to redirect the public’s police to secure private economic properties from the “looters,” away from their responsibility to help and protect the sick and dying in the streets and in the homes of New Orleans. In the two days that George Bush chose to lounge in his easy chair at his ranch in Texas, and the next three days of committees and press conferences, and the continued lack of activity, the situation deteriorated to point where the violence and desperation are now the biggest threat to the people still trapped inside the city, and the Super Dome.

They are actively setting the stage for another close encounter with accountability. Please do not let them wiggle out of their negligence for the umpteenth time, through the use of information manipulation, and rhetoric.

Share This

It’s coming, so be prepared.

When asked questions about why they chose to make the looting a priority, in the hurricane zone, over providing help for the refugees in the form of food, water, shelter and security, the Bush administration will come up with some Carl Rovian slogan that will explain it all away, and then repeat it 95 times every time they talk to anyone.

Be prepared. Don’t take the bait. When they use these techniques - call them on it. It is perfectly appropriate - and necessary - to point it out when they are deliberately and obviously trying to mislead us with rhetoric and propaganda.

Update: It looks like I had it wrong. They decided to go with the find an enemy and get everyone to focus on them route. That enemy - the “looters.” It was such a priority for them that they decided to take personal away from helping the sick and dying, and had them stop the looting instead. Where do their priorities lie anyway.

Share This

How does the U.S. have any credibility in foreign relations after what we did, excuse me, are doing in Iraq, especially where the United Nations is concerned?

Is the U.N. only a good thing when it is in your best interest? Of course. This makes perfect sense. The rules if a baseball game include one that says three strikes and you are out. When you get up to bat and that last swing was number three on your strike list, you too will want to disregard the rules and what another try.

Can you see the similarities between U.S. foreign affairs and baseball? Let me show you. The U.S. is at bat. We want to go into Iraq, the United Nations says, alright, explain why. Answer: Hussein is linked to Al Qaeda. Swing one. No? How about: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Swing two. No really it is true, let us have inspectors to show you. We promise we know where they are. Swing three, all misses.

Picture a child, around eight or nine years old. Now picture the Bush Administration saying, “Wait, wait, I want a redo!” That is our wonderful country in this scenario. I never would have thought I would be making that kind of comparison, but hey when the mitt fits. The U.N. however likes to play by the rules, and says no. We go into Iraq anyway. No weapons of mass destruction have been produced, by the way. Four strikes. This is going to be a long inning.

So the U.S. has a policy of treating foreign policy as a game. Faith level in my government– plummeting. Interest in baseball–on the rise, I no longer put it on when I am trying to go to sleep.

Not only are we making a game out of international affairs, but WAR as well. Now I am just as big a Risk and Axis and Allies fan as the next geek, but if it came to real people, my strategy might change. Not Bush number two though. We are crying when, after blatantly cheating (ignoring U.N. warnings not to invade Iraq), others are not playing fair. Scott McClellan was quoted as saying, “Syria has not fully complied with the Security Council resolution and the demands of the international community.” Syria is refusing to withdraw forces from Lebanon. Mr. McClellan continues, “Syria needs to comply fully with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, and that means getting all their intelligence operatives out of Lebanon.” Does anyone remember when the U.S. was not obeying U.N. resolutions? Syria is up at bat, and after several redoes and excuses on the U.S.’s part, McClellan is stomping his foot at Lebanon’s rule breaking?

Had we not completely removed ourselves from intelligent and rational international discussion in March of 2003, I would think of Mr. McClellan as standing up for poor Lebanon. Unfortunately the U.S. chooses its policies unilaterally, only backing those who can benefit it. Where was this crazy idea of playing fair when the U.S. was up to bat? Irritated, this is the point when all the other kids refuse to play with you ever again and walk away.

Didn’t your Mom ever tell you “Practice what you preach? It is so funny how those types of saying are annoying as a youngster, and yet so applicable as an adult. If we could only understand when we are children, many problems could be avoided. So the lessons today folks are play fair and listen to your mother.

Share This

This business of calling every scandal under the sun “something-gate” is a practice that ought to stop. It does nothing to help educate people about the issue, and does much to trivialize whatever issue it is trying to convey.

Watergate was the name of an important part of the case that lead to the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Take “Memogate” - in this case, I think it would be more important to remember the details of what this case is really about, rather than some slogan that refers to another time in history when a president of the US was being impeached for completely unrelated - and I’d say less serious - charges. There is no reason why we shouldn’t expect people to learn and remember the details and importance of “Downing Street Minutes” scandal.

BTW, you can find more information about the Downing Street Minutes scandal here.

Here’s an interesting summary of the original Memogate.

Share This

A friend sent me this link - it’s quite scary.

I could respond all night, but here’s a general impression of kinds of crap that these people actually go around saying:

Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) - “Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.”

and from the US Constitution, Article VI- Clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I guess Beverly LaHaye didn’t read the US Constitution before she spoke that complete nonsense.

I stopped reading this crap less than half way down the site - I was getting nausious, so on second thought save yourself some aggrivation, and just skip reading this complete garbage.

Share This

It’s time to get active, and contact your state senators, and let them know to stand up for campaign spending limits. The US Supreme Court made a mistake when they declared that spending money is speech. In Buckley v. Valeo, they said that spending money on a campaign is free speech. Oddly, in the same case, they said that donating money to your candidate is not free speech.

So, basically, if you are a private citizen, spending money on your candidate is not free speech, but if you are a candidate, spending money is free speech. Boneheaded.

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy contained within this decision, they also ignored the simple fact that money is not speech - it is property - property that you trade for other property or services. Also, you can own money, in the same way that you can own a house, or an SUV - both not free speech - neither is money.

Limiting what candidates can spend on a campaigns doesn’t limit speech, it limits the ability to spend money on goods and services, which congress has full rights to regulate (See the US Constitution - Article I. Section 8 for example).

This stuff seems pretty simple, and I really struggle to see what these guys were thinking in 1976.

Anyway, click the link and tell your senators to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to hear Landell v. Sorrell.

http://pirg.org/democracy/democracy.asp?id=174&id3=CFR&id4=ES&

Share This