MisterE’s whereIstand Blog

We’re not number one, we’re not even number two… we are number 97th, in terms of peace when ranked against the rest of the world.

 Take a look…

whereIstand Tags

• Was America founded on Christian values?
• Are the drug sentencing laws in America fair?
• How do you rate America’s education system?
• Will the cease-fire in Lebanon maintain peace in the region?
• What role should the U.S. play, if any, in the Israel-Palestine peace process?
• In the long run, would the United States be better off holding out for something it can call “peace with honor” or would it be better to cut our losses by announcing an exit strategy and brokering the best deal we can?

This post was originally a response to a comment from BooMac on my post about the gay marriage ban in California. Somehow, its more about capitalism than gay marriage. Anywho…

MisterE, always interesting to read your opinions.

It is unfortunate that you see this country didvided into the haves and the have nots. If there is another country on earth for more opportunity for upward mobility, I would like to hear about it. If you feel money can give people all the power, then in the USA you can have all the power. Just put your nose to the grindstone, take a chance, have your own business, work like a dog. This is freedom, the freedom to not be stuck in a dead end job. But freedom has its risks, you may not succeed, you are ” free ” to fail. Welcome to capitalism. It is the rsson this is the greatest country on earth.

I do not feel the top 1% of the upper class run the country, That sounds downright silly, and you know better.

I do not agree with the california ruling, I think letting gays marry makes a mockery of the reason for marraige, to have children and have a strong family. And you are smart, but saying you are smart enough to know something makes people think you are arrogant, and it reduces the effectiveness of your argument. Make your case, but it is your opinion. Just like this is mine. Hey, its just my nickel!

America is the greatest country in the world? Sounds very arrogant to me. It reduces the effectiveness of your argument.

I appreciate your more relaxed approach to my arguments but you’ve got to provide better logical arguments or some evidence if you want to be convincing.

I don’t know where you live or where you are from but you seem to have your head in the sand. To suggest that the top 1% elite does not overtly benefit from presidential legislation is to suggest we live in a fantasy land. What do you think lobbying is? Capitalism is not working in this country, its failing miserably. Haven’t you ever read a book? We have school teachers struggling to survive on salaries like $20,000 a year… BEFORE TAXES. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to live on a salary like that? Meanwhile, the CEO of Exxon Mobile is a multi-millionaire. Who is more important to your kids? Your family? Your well-being? The educator or the greedy oil barons?

Upset by high fuel prices? Don’t bother phoning Lee R. Raymond with your sob story. He’s the chief executive of Exxon Mobil (nyse: XOM – news – people ), which enjoyed a record-breaking year in 2004, no small thanks to those sky-high prices. Exxon gave Raymond a $38 million compensation package. The CEO was paid $7.5 million in salary and bonus, plus restricted stock worth $28 million and nearly $2.6 million more in other compensation and incentives.

Work hard? Nose to the grind stone? Tell me, do janitors eventuall strike at rich? Who’s going to clean your streets? Pick up your garbage? Teach your school children? These people work harder than you or me everyday and will never ever make enough money to sway politics or bride presidents like the top 1%. Further more, unless their children or geniuses, they won’t be able to afford a nice education for their kids, so their kids may also not get a shot at a better future.

Thats not to say that that never happens. Some students qualify for scholarships and free passes to excellent educational institutions… but not every student. In fact, you’re more likely to get a top education if you’re good as sports than if you’ve got a nice brain. How American!

America is not the best country in the world, its one of the most flawed. We still have the death penalty! How ass-backwards and barbaric is that? Name one other developed country that you respect that has the death penalty! There is tremendous opportunity for this country to be great, but as long as we class people by the way they were born then we will be among the worse countries around.

-Enjoy

whereIstand Tags

• BooMac
• What effect will oil prices have on the economy?
• Should presidential candidates refuse to accept money from lobbyists?
• If Social Security’s benefits are redistributed to the benefit of the poor, does it risk being attacked in the future as a “welfare” program?
• What effect will the federal minimum wage increase have on poverty?

Yesterday, as you all know, the California state supreme court ended a ban on gay marriage. Massachusetts is currently the only other state the allows gay marriage. Those of you who know me know that I’m smart enough to know that restricting people’s freedoms based upon the way they were born is counter progress and socially unjust.

There is a lot of other social injustice in America, and there always has been. The top 1% of America’s upper class has always had a huge advantage. They are able to keep themselves at the top and widen the gap between them and everyone else with republicans like Bush in power. This has always been and may always be. Money runs this country, but money isn’t a method of control. To control people, we often use moral crusading and religion. Followers, like sheep, allow themselves to be convinced by orators who tout morality as if it were something written in a book. Smarter people know that morality comes from within and that uncritical faith-based religions like Christianity are methods of control. Abortion lies within this web. Some conservatives know that their wish to restrict the freedom of women in America is based upon uncritical faith, or religion, rather than logic or facts. Thats why they try to paint a startling picture of pro-choicers and liberals using abortions as a method of birth control, as if it were nothing. But you’d have to be real dumb to really believe that people enjoy having abortions. The truth is, and listen carefully, that liberals hate abortions as much as conservatives. Nobody wants to have to have an abortion. But liberals have the enlightened sense to know that to make that choice for others is immoral.

So what about gays? I’ve written extensively on this, and I believe it to be the great civil rights movement of the 21st century. Once, not too long ago, the American government banned inter-racial marriage. The ban was dropped because wiser individuals understood that this was unconstitutional. And so is a ban on gay marriage.

A blogger, or writer, or whatever you want to call him had an interesting objection to the supreme court decision yesterday:

[W]e live in a representative republic, where the will of the people, as voiced through their elected representatives, is the law of the land. The responsibility of a non-elected judiciary is not to make law, that is the job of the legislative branch. In my opinion, the California Court has clearly overstepped it’s bounds here. Now 4 Supreme Court justices make a ruling which overturns the expressed wishes of a state of over 36 million people.

I believe that argument to be valid. In this instance, a majority of people voted for X but a ruling government body vetoed its purpose.

However, the reason why I believe the California ruling to be okay in this instance is because it involves equal rights for all, not a school budget or a bill on gambling. There are very likely scenarios where a majority vote of a state would once again ban interracial marriages. Does that make it okay? The majority of a state may be white conservatives, but maybe it isn’t appropriate to support some of their racist or bigoted views towards a minority community because its unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It is the supreme court’s job to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights. In this country, you are not supposed to create a second class citizenry. It is irresponsible and morally corrupt. The supreme court was protecting its citizens, and that is what they must be allowed to do. It is not right to force your morals unto others, to tell them what they can and can’t do with regards to their pursuit of happiness. There is not constitutional grounds to deny happiness to a certain minority of people based on the way they were born. Its unpatriotic.

I know that some of you believe that allowing gay marriage IS forcing morals unto others. However, this cannot be the case. Giving people freedom and choices is not forcing morals, its simply opening up interpretations. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, if you don’t want to have a gay marriage, don’t have one. Forcing morals would be if the supreme court banned marriages between men and women. This is not what they did. What they did was allow others to pursue happiness and not have their pursuit be interfered with by the government.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• Should the government regulate marriage?
• Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?
• Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
• Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?
• What legal rights to a relationship of consenting adults should be available for same-sex couples?

The murder of Sean Bell wasn’t just a simple situation. There is a reason why this was a civil rights issue, and why the acquittal of the detectives was so disturbing. There were many factors that went into the scenario that made it so disturbing. First off, over 50 shots were fired. That is a tremendous amount of bullets ripping through human bodies. Humans with thoughts, dreams, desires, wants, needs, parents…

If the police had fired 3 shots or so, and still managed to kill someone, it would be slightly different.

The second factor is that the police were the only ones firing shots. It wasn’t a gun battle, it was a slaughter. If the police had been shot at, or at least, had seen a gun, the situation would be different. Image you had been standing at the Jamaica station waiting for a train, you would have come close to being killed yourself… from a police handgun. These detectives were reckless and unprofessional.

If we are to live in a better society, we need to rid ourselves of the gang mentality the police have. In New York, we have thugs on both sides of the line. I’ve seen police be extremely rude, arrest someone under false pretenses, be insensitive to innocent people, be short and unprofessional with dealing with victims, and I’ve seen them use excessive force. I haven’t personally witnessed the opposite from the NYPD, but I have seen it from policies officers in other counties. I know the NYPD does good work and I know there are good cops out there. I am thrilled that the streets are safer and that thugs are being put behind bars. I’ve witnessed gun violence in my neighborhood, and I felt safer knowing that the perpetrators were behind bars for at least three years.

The bottom line is that these people are human beings being given a gun and the right to kill undesirables without consequences. In a perfect world, the police would be robots, incapable of being affected by human emotions or moods. But, we’re far from that scenario, so we need to make sure that these people who are supposed to protect us aren’t actually hurting us. You cannot deify the police. If I had killed an unarmed man on the streets I would be charged with manslaughter or at least reckless endangerment and I would be convicted of that crime. The police MUST be subject to the laws they are supposed to uphold.

If this was indeed an accident or a mistake, those responsible need to pay for that mistake, just like any civilian in this country.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• NYPD
• Was the verdict in the Sean Bell case appropriate?

Stem cell research is bad? A mass of cells is a life? Does that mean I shouldn’t flush the toilet every time I use it? What about that massive booger I just fished out of my nose?

I direct the pope to my most recent post about stem cell research, and how negative religious views of science can hinder progress in our world.

Do people really believe that this man has magic powers? That he communicates with inter-dimensional omnipotent creators?

I have to laugh at the blatant shamanism at work here. Inherent in being religious is the lack of the ability to be critical. If you aren’t critical than anything can be anything, and an old man can be considered pious.

I don’t hate the pope! Some people really need a leader to guide their moral principles. I always applaud a leader who advocates peace and non-violence. But I always have to question the intelligence of a person who believes that a Jew literally walked on a water and resurrected himself, and that an Abrahamic God created our universe.

So many people are convinced of so many silly things. Look at scientologists and mormons! Where was their critical thinking skills? I can understand that 150 years ago our scientific instruments were not sharp nor robustly conclusive, but in a day and age where we can count electrons on an single atom… do we really need to continue to believe in magic and mystics?

The pope came here because he knows that there are many people left in this nation who lack critical thinking skills, and he can use that to his advantage. Bush sure did. Believing things without question is a weakness, and it is that which makes America so fragile. I was able to bring a set of screw drivers, needle nose pliers, wire cutters and a hammer onto a domestic airplane flight, but they would be DAMNED if they let me keep my tooth paste! Ignorance comes from remaining silent when you should ask questions, and that is what most leaders in America are counting on.

Think of how many times you have been taken advantage of because you didn’t know something.

Does the pope take advantage of you? Anyone who uses your uncritical faith in something to further an agenda or get votes is taking advantage of you.

Embryos are not human. People suffering from ALS are human. Life does not begin at conception, a man never walked on water, our universe was not created by a deity that listens to prayers and came to Moses in the form of a burning bush. I know these things because I have critical thinking skills and I know that there isn’t any evidence to support them. I have the advantage because I am knowledgeable, and if I wanted, I could use that against others for my own gain. But unlike Bush, or perhaps the pope, I’d rather direct people to research and evidence that bring reality to light and make life better for everyone on this planet. The Vatican may know the truth about Christianity, they may know that Jesus most likely never existed and that the Exodus is a myth. But why on Earth would they let on to something like that? They would lose their control over all the believers.

A world full of people believing in a shaman and his powers is not somewhere we should be right now.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• PopeBenedictXVI
• Should the Catholic Church excommunicate members who are pro-choice?
• Should the Catholic Church deny communion to members who are pro-choice?
• Should the federal government subsidize the creation of new stem cell lines?
• Should scientists pursue embryonic stem cell research?
• Who should decide whether embryonic stem cells may be used for medical research?
• Do adult stem cells have the same medical potential as embryonic stem cells?

Dick Brooks wrote a delightful post where he shows us how easily people can be swayed by big business and deceit into thinking global warming is not a human problem. I feel sorry for individuals who can’t think critically, but I am annoyed by individuals who put arguments forth with no evidence. I asked Dick for evidence in a comment, he chose not to post the comment (not sure why).

So I ask him here; where is your evidence?

Too often people forget the basics of critical thought and get swayed too easily by popular opinion or biased media. I am not saying that you have to be ultra skeptical of reality, but don’t just believe everything you hear. 3rd graders believe everything they here, but so does most adult American conservatives.

whereIstand Tags

• AlGore
• Is global warming a problem that humans must take actions to address?
• Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?
• Can global warming be stopped?
• What impact will globalization ultimately have on America?
• What impact will globalization ultimately have on countries that are not part of the “first world”?
• What impact has globalization had on American film?
• What effect will climate change have on the economy?
• Do films have the power to effect social change?

Its no secret that our administration has been part of some of the most heinous acts of inhumanity and insurrection our country has ever known. From lying to its supporters to slaughtering innocent civilians, the Bush corporation has tainted our existence with evil, brought this country down to levels so low that I’m surprised we aren’t reclassified as a developing nation.

What concerns me is that the darkness that is neo-conservatism has infected the media so severely that I feel like its no longer an independent entity. Naturally, information being openly shared is a more progressive or liberal idea. A lot of what conservative administrations do is limit or block information to benefit them, and in order to keep Americans in the dark, this is a necessity. Its a cycle. Conservative administrations’ primary goal is more money for the elite wealthy class, they do this by any means necessary which often means human rights violations (including slaughter and murder), which requires misinformation, censored information, and/or deceit, which leads to media being controlled by the government which leads to more conservative governments.

Depressing I know.

What if they disclosed a torture memo and nobody cared? This week, an81-page memo, authored by John C. Yoo, who was a deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice at the time of its creation, was declassified and made public. The memo, which, among other things, was used as the rationale for authorizing the torture of government detainees, has long been held to be a savage reimagining of the structure of the Executive Branch and its authority, hostile to the traditional checks and balances that circumscribe the President’s authority.

The memo is one of the most unpatriotic things America has ever produced. But what is interesting is that the mainstream media ignored it… or asked to or required to ignore it. One of the major points I am making is that we are not moving forwards as a country. You cannot be a superior country if you still have the death penalty, torture prisoners, deny habeas corpus to some and not others, instigate military actions in other countries, interfere with the happiness of citizens, sacrifice liberty for a false sense of security, use fear to rally support for war, and all the while make a shit load of money off of it.

John Yoo’s Memorandum, as intended, directly led to — caused — a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush’s White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney’s counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes…This incident provides yet more proof of how rancid and corrupt is the premise that as long as political appointees at the DOJ approve of certain conduct, then that conduct must be shielded from criminal prosecution. That’s the premise that is being applied over and over to remove government lawbreaking from the reach of the law.

The memo basically says that the president can authorize any action during “wartime” which is also something he can declare. Congress can’t stop him, treaties can be violated, and he cannot be interfered with by any court in the United States. It is as if he can declare martial law over the world. The memo sets the scope for his power to being without limits.

These people need to be tried in international criminal courts for war crimes committed against humanity.

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• DickCheney
• Can the use of torture as an interrogation technique be justified?
• Has the War on Terror been effective?
• Is the U.S. safer from terrorism today than it was before 9/11?
• Should the President order domestic warrantless wiretaps to combat terrorism?
• What should be done with the Guantanamo detainees?