This week don't ask don't tell was repealed. As an avid supporter for gay rights, I'm thrilled. In a world where there is no where near enough social justice, I'm horrified America would join in such obvious intolerance, especially in California, my home state, the "liberal" state. California is the home of San Francisco (my hometown!!) which to my knowledge, is the gayest city in the entire USA. So why is it such a struggle for this state to allow gays so basic a right as marriage?
Because, according to the wonderful Mormon Church, here in California, gays are horrid people who are trying to destroy marriage with their God offending relationships. I wish I could say I understand their argument, I just have to politely disagree. But that would be lying. I don't understand at all where their coming from. They claim gays offend God, and choose their lifestyle even though its a sin. My response to that small piece of craziness: I thought God was all loving. Wait, I remember. He only loves all of you. He hates everyone else. The part about choosing is just ignorant. There are many accounts from older gay citizens that talk about believing they were insane when they realized they were attracted to the same sex. They didn't even know that homosexuality existed. I'm sorry, but in my mind, that is proof its not a chosen state.
The Mormon Church also claims that two men or two women marrying is offensive to the beautiful marriage between a man and a woman. I also have to disagree. Two people who love each other and have decided to spend the rest of their lives with only each other is not offensive. If people are really concerned about making marriage pure, maybe they should tear down the chapels in Vegas that allow any drunk get married, as long as the happy drunk couple is a man and a woman, not a drunk man and man.
The church also says what two men do in the bedroom together is a sin, and they know this because its in the Bible. You know what else is in the Bible? A law against eating shellfish. But I'm not giving up crab. And honestly? If you don't like what gays do in the bedroom, don't think about it. Its no ones business but the people in the bedroom. And people are going to do it whether they are married or not, so why are we taking away a basic right like marriage if its not going to stop them anyway? Thats just intolerance for the sake of intolerance.
According to Ann Coulter, the reason a heterosexual couple is allowed to marry while a homosexual couple cannot is simple; marriage is a system used only for child rearing, and homosexual couples cannot have children. To make her reason work, however, every married couple would have to have children or else be "offense" to other normal married couples. So far, I have seen no parades of delusional people screaming about the sins of the childless couple. Why? Because its the 21 century. Women are allowed to have careers, and children are a choice. Being a mother is no longer as expected of women as it used to be. Therefore, Ann Coulter, thank you. But your excuse is still just another weak excuse.
However, Anns rant brings another side to the argument. Children. According to a lot of conservatives, gays should not be allowed to adopt, for "the good of the child" and "an unstable home environment" is the only thing gays could offer children they adopt. Let me tell you about a survey I read about. In a study done with the children of heterosexual couple's children and homosexual couple's children, this was the finding: 28% of the children raised by a heterosexual couple were abused in some way. I'll talk about how horrifying that is after I tell you how many kids raised by gay couples were abused in the same way: 0%. No kids raised gays or lesbians were abused by their parents or any other family members, while 28% of kids raised by straight parents were subject to abuse. Let me say that again: 28%. Its horrible, disgusting and says a lot about the "progress" of our society. What else says a lot? The 0% from the other side. Lets talk about why.
Adoption is a huge process. There is home visits, check ups, interviews, and backround checks, for homosexual and heterosexual couples wishing to adopt. Besides that, it can take years after joining an agency for a couple to be chosen as new parents. Anyone who truly wants a child isn't going to go through this to abuse a child. Their doing this because they want to be a parent that much, but because of different situations its impossible for them to conceive. This means a gay couple has years to consider, and when their picked, the agency is positive that they are good enough people to raise a child. Then theres the other side, the healthy heterosexual couple who can have a child on their own, sometimes on accident, and sometimes resulting in a child they don't truly want. Unwanted children are often abused children. Many unwanted pregnancies result in a pleasant surprise of a well loved child. Others end in abused children in situations they don't deserve. Homosexuals don't face this situation when adopting. They have to be positive about it. Adoption agencies don't give children to couples who might want a kid. They give them to confident, stable, loving people. Aren't they the people we want raising the generation of the future?
-teenageliberal
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
these are the children of the future?
I truly hate to diss my own generation. It sucks. But sometimes its called for. Baggy jeans were adopted as a trend by the males of my generation. Btw, this trend actually started in prison. This is a "bitches" sex style. Hahahaha. Anyway. My generation is obsessed with video games, fast food, and has the highest percentage of sexually active teens ever. However, there is some good news too. Those violent video games that are making us all believe violence is an okay way to deal with a situation? My parents generation has a much higher percentage of violent teen crimes. Those sexually active teens? Yeah, we also have a lower percentage of rapes committed by teens, and the highest rate of girls reporting sexually abuse ever. Those horrible rap songs that are teaching us to be "gangsta" and kill people? Well, all hip-hop has done to my generation is make boys wearing pants that show they wanna have butt sex. So not all great, but not violent.
I'm talking up my generation a lot. Its sort of easy. We are working harder than any other generation to solve the problems our parent's generation created, and also are fighting harder to erase intolerance and stereotypes that have been around much longer than we have. Also, its not like adults are helping our mission much. Intolerance is being taught everyday, almost as much as tolerance. Politicians are setting horrible examples, and actually stopping progress in our advancement forward in life. How? Lets talk public school in the USA.
Right now, teachers are getting laid off everyday. Art and sport programs are being cut right and left, and for the first time in USA history, kids today are actually getting a worse education than their parents. We are literally going backwards. Why? Why is education getting some of the worst budget cuts? Shouldn't it be cut last? After all, these kids getting shitty educations now will one day be running the country. I know people like Sarah Palin, but do we want all of our future leaders to be like her? And I know that the politicians who decide on the budget cuts won't be around by then, so it doesn't matter to them, but what about me and all the other people who were forced into this era of idiots? We're getting screwed over for your mistakes? Yeah. That sounds fair.
In my opinion, teachers and schools should get budgets cut last. And only in a state of emergency. Like, if Hitler rises from the grave and he marches with hordes of zombies to kill us all, and so we have to go to war, than take money from schools to fight him. But I digress. Right now, there is a fast way to make money. Make dealing pot and other more minor drugs not such a big deal. Keeping a dumb-ass kid in prison for selling costs a lot of money out of the taxpayers pocket, and most of the people paying really don't give a shit if dumb-ass is dealing. If instead of costly prison time they have to pay a fine, or do community service, it will help the state more, by a lot. Not only has the state had to fire the people cleaning highways to cut costs, so theres community service there, but also it will bring down the prison budget, therefore allowing more money for schools. I won't dare suggest we reduce the military budget, or even better, stop starting expensive wars that are really none of our business to begin with, but really? War is expensive. Why would we do that? We have common sense. Right, ex President Bush who started a very very costly war on a rumor that turned out not to be true and made us enemies with many countries? We know better.
-teenageliberal
I'm talking up my generation a lot. Its sort of easy. We are working harder than any other generation to solve the problems our parent's generation created, and also are fighting harder to erase intolerance and stereotypes that have been around much longer than we have. Also, its not like adults are helping our mission much. Intolerance is being taught everyday, almost as much as tolerance. Politicians are setting horrible examples, and actually stopping progress in our advancement forward in life. How? Lets talk public school in the USA.
Right now, teachers are getting laid off everyday. Art and sport programs are being cut right and left, and for the first time in USA history, kids today are actually getting a worse education than their parents. We are literally going backwards. Why? Why is education getting some of the worst budget cuts? Shouldn't it be cut last? After all, these kids getting shitty educations now will one day be running the country. I know people like Sarah Palin, but do we want all of our future leaders to be like her? And I know that the politicians who decide on the budget cuts won't be around by then, so it doesn't matter to them, but what about me and all the other people who were forced into this era of idiots? We're getting screwed over for your mistakes? Yeah. That sounds fair.
In my opinion, teachers and schools should get budgets cut last. And only in a state of emergency. Like, if Hitler rises from the grave and he marches with hordes of zombies to kill us all, and so we have to go to war, than take money from schools to fight him. But I digress. Right now, there is a fast way to make money. Make dealing pot and other more minor drugs not such a big deal. Keeping a dumb-ass kid in prison for selling costs a lot of money out of the taxpayers pocket, and most of the people paying really don't give a shit if dumb-ass is dealing. If instead of costly prison time they have to pay a fine, or do community service, it will help the state more, by a lot. Not only has the state had to fire the people cleaning highways to cut costs, so theres community service there, but also it will bring down the prison budget, therefore allowing more money for schools. I won't dare suggest we reduce the military budget, or even better, stop starting expensive wars that are really none of our business to begin with, but really? War is expensive. Why would we do that? We have common sense. Right, ex President Bush who started a very very costly war on a rumor that turned out not to be true and made us enemies with many countries? We know better.
-teenageliberal
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
cute, perky, charismatic... politician? really?
I can't even understand how anyone would like Sarah Palin as a neighbor. She is so annoying. The lame jokes, the promises, the holier than thou attitude even though her situation is less than desirable. But as a politician? In a high power position no less? Why, America? Why? True, she is fashionable. True, she has a great set of legs. So put her in a beauty pageant... oh yeah. Been there, done that. Normally, fashion in very important to me. I think it says a lot, and is very needed in most situations, especially when it comes to gaining respect like politicians have to do. But just being fashionable does not give you the credentials to help run the country. Vogue, absolutely. But even the editor at fashion magazines need the education to run a corporation, which includes being in charge of the welfare of other people.
I didn't like her when she was running for vise president, but I like her even less as the spokesperson for the Tea Party, the most ridiculous political group ever invented, in my opinion. At least when she was campaigning in 2008, Tina Fey was able to do truly excellent impressions of her, which made her even more of a joke than she was. However, with the attention brought to her from the Tea Party, and her new reality show she might actually be able to damage. She is again talking about running for president in 2012, and please, America... Have the common sense not to even consider it. I know she looks like-able on her show. I know some TV and movie stars have been good for politics, our own governor, the Terminator, being a good example. Ronald Reagon, not so much. But thats another rant. But Sarah Palin? No. Snooki is hugely popular and on TV. Are we going to to consider her the perfect politician too?
Lets be real here. People like her because she is "the common American." What? The common American shoots moose, are governors and spends thousands of dollars on matching suits? And why is she so proud of being a hockey mom? Shouldn't she be more proud of being governor of Alaska? Not bringing attention to the fact that shes willing to step out of the most stressful job the country has to offer to watch her kids skate? I have also noticed that when most parents speak out against pre-marital sex their pregnant teenage daughter isn't standing next to them. But, she also doesn't believe in abortion, so I guess one sin and wrecking a couple kid's lives is better than two sins, right?
I understand that people want a president that comes from them, that understands their situations. Who knows what living in America really is, and what the best plan of action is, based on experience. But honestly? I don't want a leader who is on the same level as the idiots of America. I want someone better. Who is smarter, who has had to work harder. Better education, more knowledge of whats really going on behind closed doors in this government. I don't care if they don't speak the working class language as long as they know how to help the working class. So America, really. Don't look for yourself in the politicians. If you want that, run yourself. Look for someone who can help you better than you can help yourself. It seems so obvious.
-teenageliberal
I didn't like her when she was running for vise president, but I like her even less as the spokesperson for the Tea Party, the most ridiculous political group ever invented, in my opinion. At least when she was campaigning in 2008, Tina Fey was able to do truly excellent impressions of her, which made her even more of a joke than she was. However, with the attention brought to her from the Tea Party, and her new reality show she might actually be able to damage. She is again talking about running for president in 2012, and please, America... Have the common sense not to even consider it. I know she looks like-able on her show. I know some TV and movie stars have been good for politics, our own governor, the Terminator, being a good example. Ronald Reagon, not so much. But thats another rant. But Sarah Palin? No. Snooki is hugely popular and on TV. Are we going to to consider her the perfect politician too?
Lets be real here. People like her because she is "the common American." What? The common American shoots moose, are governors and spends thousands of dollars on matching suits? And why is she so proud of being a hockey mom? Shouldn't she be more proud of being governor of Alaska? Not bringing attention to the fact that shes willing to step out of the most stressful job the country has to offer to watch her kids skate? I have also noticed that when most parents speak out against pre-marital sex their pregnant teenage daughter isn't standing next to them. But, she also doesn't believe in abortion, so I guess one sin and wrecking a couple kid's lives is better than two sins, right?
I understand that people want a president that comes from them, that understands their situations. Who knows what living in America really is, and what the best plan of action is, based on experience. But honestly? I don't want a leader who is on the same level as the idiots of America. I want someone better. Who is smarter, who has had to work harder. Better education, more knowledge of whats really going on behind closed doors in this government. I don't care if they don't speak the working class language as long as they know how to help the working class. So America, really. Don't look for yourself in the politicians. If you want that, run yourself. Look for someone who can help you better than you can help yourself. It seems so obvious.
-teenageliberal
Sunday, December 5, 2010
apple vs. pomegranate vs. common sense
And the serpent he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest ye die."
And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Let me get this straight. God gives them the garden, says you can have everything...but this. This is off limits. Why was he surprised when they tried the forbidden fruit? I mean, isn't he all seeing and all knowing? Wouldn't he know that this was coming as soon as he created this tree and threw Lucifer from heaven? If he controls all fate, and everyone is on a predestined path, why did he get pissed when Adam and Eve lived out the destiny he set for them? That doesn't seem fair. It seems to me like he made a mistake, and needed a scapegoat. And her name is Eve. Please. Original sin? Women are put through childbirth because she believed the talking snake, and ate a piece of fruit, even though God hadn't taught her good and evil, and therefore she didn't even know that lying was possible, which makes her not applicable to make her own decisions in such circumstances.
If you have read the title to this, is talks about a piece of irony I personally looooove. Religious experts (they exist. I know, right? lol) now are saying that they don't believe Adam and Eve ate the forbidden Apple of Wisdom, because when they study the geography and flora described in the Bible, in sounds like what you would find in the Middle East. This leads them to believe Eve took the first bite from the Pomegranate of Wisdom. Doesn't have the same ring, does it? Or are the words "Middle East" wrecking it for the looneys that believe the creation story the Bible tells?
Thats right, psychos. That place that your so certain is full of evil Muslims trying to kill us is... the Garden of Edan, Paradise, call it what your will. This is the final piece of evidence demanding the Christians re-evaluate the Middle East religious battle. Firstly, JESUS WAS MIDDLE EASTERN. I don't care what is drawn on your pamphlet, he was NOT BLOND. Secondly, we need to look at who actually owned the land first, and whether their practice was legal. You might remember how long the Christians were banned, and had to go underground. If they worship was outlawed, they can't now claim that they owned that land. It would illegal for them too.
There is of course another argument. Its called science. Its what a lot of religious wing nuts call bullshit. This is Darwins theory. Which has skeletons and fossils to back it up. What does the Christian creation story have as evidence? The Bible. Need I say more?
-teenageliberal
And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Let me get this straight. God gives them the garden, says you can have everything...but this. This is off limits. Why was he surprised when they tried the forbidden fruit? I mean, isn't he all seeing and all knowing? Wouldn't he know that this was coming as soon as he created this tree and threw Lucifer from heaven? If he controls all fate, and everyone is on a predestined path, why did he get pissed when Adam and Eve lived out the destiny he set for them? That doesn't seem fair. It seems to me like he made a mistake, and needed a scapegoat. And her name is Eve. Please. Original sin? Women are put through childbirth because she believed the talking snake, and ate a piece of fruit, even though God hadn't taught her good and evil, and therefore she didn't even know that lying was possible, which makes her not applicable to make her own decisions in such circumstances.
If you have read the title to this, is talks about a piece of irony I personally looooove. Religious experts (they exist. I know, right? lol) now are saying that they don't believe Adam and Eve ate the forbidden Apple of Wisdom, because when they study the geography and flora described in the Bible, in sounds like what you would find in the Middle East. This leads them to believe Eve took the first bite from the Pomegranate of Wisdom. Doesn't have the same ring, does it? Or are the words "Middle East" wrecking it for the looneys that believe the creation story the Bible tells?
Thats right, psychos. That place that your so certain is full of evil Muslims trying to kill us is... the Garden of Edan, Paradise, call it what your will. This is the final piece of evidence demanding the Christians re-evaluate the Middle East religious battle. Firstly, JESUS WAS MIDDLE EASTERN. I don't care what is drawn on your pamphlet, he was NOT BLOND. Secondly, we need to look at who actually owned the land first, and whether their practice was legal. You might remember how long the Christians were banned, and had to go underground. If they worship was outlawed, they can't now claim that they owned that land. It would illegal for them too.
There is of course another argument. Its called science. Its what a lot of religious wing nuts call bullshit. This is Darwins theory. Which has skeletons and fossils to back it up. What does the Christian creation story have as evidence? The Bible. Need I say more?
-teenageliberal
Friday, November 19, 2010
Lets start at the beginning...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I'm sorry. Perfect union? Justice? Domestic Tranquility? General WELFARE??? What am I missing here? This is the Constitution, right? And we are still in America, aren't we? So why is all of this ignored now?
I'm not going to talk about that right now, however. Because as entertaining the first paragraph of our Constitution is, it gets better. I am talking about our Bill of Rights of course, the original ten laws our Founding Fathers thought our country couldn't take its first steps without. Lets skip to that, shall we?
Amendment 1: 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.
In other words, the same law that allows FOX news to spread all the horrible lies they believe also protects the Muslims they hate and lie about. Because according to the first amendment, everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they chose to, and the press is allowed to say whatever they want without the government changing the content. I love irony.
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Put simply: Every dumb-ass can own a gun. According to newer laws, this gun can't be hidden, so wear them proudly! Then get a tour of the police station when 20 people call the cops about the psycho with a gun. This law might have worked back when it was written. They carried muskets, which take several minutes to work, had bad aim, and couldn't be concealed due to size. But this is the 21 century. They have invented shooting pens. Time to rethink this law.
Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This law I like. Put simply, in modern English, it says you don't have to let anyone into your house, even authority such as police, without a warrant. Of course, nothing says suspicious like refusing to let a cop in, but even when they come back and search your entire house with a judge's permission, you will know that you were allowed to refuse them.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a broader look at amendment 3. This says you can refuse to be searched, have your house searched, be forced to show them your papers...wait. Funny. So not only is Arizona violating citizens privacy with this new anti-immigration law, but also the US Constitution? Interesting. Were you aware of this, Arizona officials? You have read the Constitution, right? Of course you have. You're politicians. Its just easier to ignore the fourth official law our founding fathers created to "protect" our country.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This, as a teenager, might be my favorite law. This law states that one doesn't have to answer a question, or state a fact that might might be self incriminating. This isn't only what this amendment says, however. Also, that capital offenses have to be tried in front of a jury, and insists on due process of law, to ensure that someone won't be tried twice on the same matter. Its genius. However, like refusing entrance to cop, nothing looks more incriminating than pleading the fifth. There is always a downside.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Another court oriented law. This one says that there has to be a jury, a fast trial is allowed, and that the accused is allowed an attorney, which according to US law, while be supplied if the accused doesn't already have one. This amendment also allows witnesses for and against the accused at the trail.
Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This, I honestly think America could have waited on. It protects American's right to a jury in civil cases, which are normally decided in a small claims court. It also puts a limit on the judge's power to overturn the jury. Not as exciting as the last two, but also law oriented.
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No cruel and unusual punishment, huh? Funny, both Arizona and the Bush Administration misread the Constitution. Because US according to Dick Cheney, there is no torture. In the US, at least. The constitution doesn't say anything about American officials torturing suspects outside of the country border. So if we hide it well, it won't matter, right innocent people tortured at Guantanamo purely because of suspicions of racists? We'll just pretend this isn't happening.
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment gets argued over a lot, because its meaning was originally that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not the only rights Americans had the right to protect. But since these other rights aren't listed, there is some argument. I thoughts are, if you can argue it in a court of law, with a jury of your peers, and think you have a chance of winning, its worth protecting. Its your right to protect it. Go nuts.
And finally...
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are pages of the Constitution regarding where power goes, how the government works, and power of the State vs. the power of the Feds. This amendment is for all the people that skimmed or skipped it. This isn't a right. This is protection of power, the power of the States. This is so that the government would remain a government, and not become a monarchy, or worse, a fascist nation.
Reading through our original laws, and the hopes of our Founding Fathers have really made me realize this though; America has changed. A lot. George Washington must be spinning in his grave.
-teenageliberal
I'm not going to talk about that right now, however. Because as entertaining the first paragraph of our Constitution is, it gets better. I am talking about our Bill of Rights of course, the original ten laws our Founding Fathers thought our country couldn't take its first steps without. Lets skip to that, shall we?
Amendment 1: 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.
In other words, the same law that allows FOX news to spread all the horrible lies they believe also protects the Muslims they hate and lie about. Because according to the first amendment, everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they chose to, and the press is allowed to say whatever they want without the government changing the content. I love irony.
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Put simply: Every dumb-ass can own a gun. According to newer laws, this gun can't be hidden, so wear them proudly! Then get a tour of the police station when 20 people call the cops about the psycho with a gun. This law might have worked back when it was written. They carried muskets, which take several minutes to work, had bad aim, and couldn't be concealed due to size. But this is the 21 century. They have invented shooting pens. Time to rethink this law.
Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This law I like. Put simply, in modern English, it says you don't have to let anyone into your house, even authority such as police, without a warrant. Of course, nothing says suspicious like refusing to let a cop in, but even when they come back and search your entire house with a judge's permission, you will know that you were allowed to refuse them.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a broader look at amendment 3. This says you can refuse to be searched, have your house searched, be forced to show them your papers...wait. Funny. So not only is Arizona violating citizens privacy with this new anti-immigration law, but also the US Constitution? Interesting. Were you aware of this, Arizona officials? You have read the Constitution, right? Of course you have. You're politicians. Its just easier to ignore the fourth official law our founding fathers created to "protect" our country.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This, as a teenager, might be my favorite law. This law states that one doesn't have to answer a question, or state a fact that might might be self incriminating. This isn't only what this amendment says, however. Also, that capital offenses have to be tried in front of a jury, and insists on due process of law, to ensure that someone won't be tried twice on the same matter. Its genius. However, like refusing entrance to cop, nothing looks more incriminating than pleading the fifth. There is always a downside.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Another court oriented law. This one says that there has to be a jury, a fast trial is allowed, and that the accused is allowed an attorney, which according to US law, while be supplied if the accused doesn't already have one. This amendment also allows witnesses for and against the accused at the trail.
Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This, I honestly think America could have waited on. It protects American's right to a jury in civil cases, which are normally decided in a small claims court. It also puts a limit on the judge's power to overturn the jury. Not as exciting as the last two, but also law oriented.
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No cruel and unusual punishment, huh? Funny, both Arizona and the Bush Administration misread the Constitution. Because US according to Dick Cheney, there is no torture. In the US, at least. The constitution doesn't say anything about American officials torturing suspects outside of the country border. So if we hide it well, it won't matter, right innocent people tortured at Guantanamo purely because of suspicions of racists? We'll just pretend this isn't happening.
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment gets argued over a lot, because its meaning was originally that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not the only rights Americans had the right to protect. But since these other rights aren't listed, there is some argument. I thoughts are, if you can argue it in a court of law, with a jury of your peers, and think you have a chance of winning, its worth protecting. Its your right to protect it. Go nuts.
And finally...
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are pages of the Constitution regarding where power goes, how the government works, and power of the State vs. the power of the Feds. This amendment is for all the people that skimmed or skipped it. This isn't a right. This is protection of power, the power of the States. This is so that the government would remain a government, and not become a monarchy, or worse, a fascist nation.
Reading through our original laws, and the hopes of our Founding Fathers have really made me realize this though; America has changed. A lot. George Washington must be spinning in his grave.
-teenageliberal
Sunday, November 14, 2010
facts, not thoughts
First of all, I have to say this: these are only opinions, and opinions of a 16 year old at that. Don't quote me. Partly because nothing says loser more than quoting a blog, but also because, while I personally always think I'm right, some idiots don't agree. You might know, or even be those idiots. By the way, these idiots I'm talking about are conservatives. I'm not talking about don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about-guess-I'll-vote-Republican idiots. I'm talking about the people (at least they claim their people) who believe Ann Coulter and Glen Beck speak the word of God. These people I laugh at. In case the title of this blog didn't tip you off, I am a sworn Liberal. I believe in everything that Ann Coulter says is from Hell. Gay marriage, rights to abort, Obama, all of it. And I will talk about this later, if I don't lose interest in ranting my opinions to the internet, which, if you know me, is very unlikely.
Secondly, I will only post what I belief is truth on this. If I know what I am saying is a rumor, or an opinion, I will tell you. But what I state as fact will be from real newspapers, or news reports, not from skimming the headlines and writing the article I think is there in my head, then stating it as real. People who do this piss me off. If you wanna get the facts, get the facts. Its easy. This is the 21st century. Use Google, and make sure its not .com, but .org, .gov, or .edu for the facts. Thats where I get my stuff. .Coms are for everyone to post their opinion abusing the first amendment. You might notice I am writing on blogger.COM. I rest my case.
Lastly, I would like to put out there: this is not a professional blog. Partly, because, really? Who the hell wants to tell people that blogging is their job? way lame. Also, because, if you haven't read any of this so far, I'm a teenager. I'm currently in high school. Which means I will update when I update. Sometimes I won't have time, sometimes I won't feel like it. Live with it.
-teenageliberal
Secondly, I will only post what I belief is truth on this. If I know what I am saying is a rumor, or an opinion, I will tell you. But what I state as fact will be from real newspapers, or news reports, not from skimming the headlines and writing the article I think is there in my head, then stating it as real. People who do this piss me off. If you wanna get the facts, get the facts. Its easy. This is the 21st century. Use Google, and make sure its not .com, but .org, .gov, or .edu for the facts. Thats where I get my stuff. .Coms are for everyone to post their opinion abusing the first amendment. You might notice I am writing on blogger.COM. I rest my case.
Lastly, I would like to put out there: this is not a professional blog. Partly, because, really? Who the hell wants to tell people that blogging is their job? way lame. Also, because, if you haven't read any of this so far, I'm a teenager. I'm currently in high school. Which means I will update when I update. Sometimes I won't have time, sometimes I won't feel like it. Live with it.
-teenageliberal
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)