Bigotry needs to stop being a political tool

I woke up today and do what I do every morning in my attempt to usurp the moral fiber of America. I texted my girlfriend, who lives almost a thousand miles away, a simple “Good Morning darling”.

I didn’t get my usual “Hello Beautiful” back (yes, we’re disgustingly cheesy; it goes with the long distance). Instead I got this: “NC passed the amendment ” We have no real interest in moving to North Carolina, much less now. But, this isn’t about North Carolina or gay marriage for that matter. It’s politics, and that’s even worse.

Almost 1 million people in North Carolina voted to ban gay marriage in the state. The ban also extends to civil unions and domestic partnerships. It is one of the most prohibitive bans in the country. The marriage ban was already in place as a law, the fact that it is now part of the state charter is a symbolic gesture to the people that voted.

The bill comes during an important election year for Republicans, who are trying to prove they are the most conservative. They were catering to voters when they wrote the bill, not to their God. This isn’t about religion; it’s about a sense of entitlement that allows voters to think they have the right to take rights away. To be honest, I prefer the Democrats entitlement state more.

“The whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults,” said one of the pro-marriage activists in North Carolina. The amendment is meant to ward of activist judges who could change the state law, but not the constitution.

Aside from the issue that “God’s Design” should have nothing to do with “North Carolina’s design" is that there is no reason that wedge issues (politicized ones that actually affect a minimal part of the population) should be turned into an incursion on civil liberties simply to make a political move.

I don’t care what people do in their personal life. I’m a live and let live kind of person and I don’t appreciate my personal life and my rights becoming political pawns.

Culture war shows masses need checks and balances as well

Rick Santorum is against the use of contraception even for married couples.

With the Republican Primaries and current events somehow devolving into an American cultural war, it has never become clearer than ever that the masses need to be checked from their biases as much as the government needs to be checked from its abuse of power.

I’ll show my bias at once. Social conservatives scare me and they seem judgmental and hateful to me. And I dislike that they believe the “power of the people” and “real America” should mandate my rights.

As this great LA Times Piece shows, the confluence of current events with the Republican Primaries has turned our usual bipartisan anger into a veritable culture war. Old time values are clashing with contemporary life in an unfathomable way. I’ll take advantage of the piece to go in order of these events to show exactly how this culture war is pure rhetoric, dangerous one at that.

With the new decision by the 9th District Court to strike down Prop 8 the case of gay marriage will go to the United States Supreme Court. Republicans have been quick to call out the ‘activist judges’ for going against the case of a majority.

Well, let’s look at the facts. That vast “majority” being disrespected is one of 52% to 48%. The difference between yes and no was around 600,000 votes in a state that holds almost 37 million people. If we are to ere in the side of giving instead of taking away rights, that is hardly a majority that can really mandate that sort of change.

Same sex marriage just passed in Washington and will be in the ballots in New Jersey and Maine in November. In New Jersey the governor Christie (who likes to make jokes about women giving blow jobs), says he will veto the move which I’m sure Republicans would not see as going against the majority in the least.

Then comes the Susan G Komen controversy, a grayer one at that. It really has nothing to do with the government but the fact that these culture war proponents are obsessed enough to take away cancer prevention from women shows the extremes that this rhetoric can go to. For those wanting to argue, here is the breakdown of Planned Parenthood's annual report and how they spend their money.

Seems like a strange battle to make to keep from saving lives to possibly save the life of a fetus that may or may not be alive according to your definition. It would be easier to simply state in donations that they not be used for abortion purposes rather than not provide them altogether.

Finally comes the latest attack on religion through Obama’s new contraceptive law. A new law passed from Obama planned to force religious institutions to cover contraceptives in their health insurance for non-church employees. Let’s say the churches weren’t engaging in rhetoric, if they were hiring people that followed their beliefs, wouldn’t it be a moot point regardless?

Obama gave in to the pressure and now the institutions themselves won’t be mandated to cover it, but the insurance companies will have to provide the contraceptives if one of these employees reaches out to them. But not before the religious right decided to compare a contraceptive law to the holocaust. They always find a way to do it don’t they?

Please let’s stop this stupid rhetoric and focus on what matters: the economy. Don’t let these distractions get in the way of an important voting cycle for 2012, vote which way you wish but don’t let rhetoric mandate that choice.

When the Game Turns to Tragedy

As Salvador Cabañas lays in a hospital bed with a bullet lodged in his skull, the mystery as to his shooting continues to travel through the press. First was the report of an attempted robbery, which was ruled out by Mexic’s Attorney General Miguel Angel Mancera.

In a city filled with violence, in a country mired by ever increasing violence it may seem a stretch to add significance to what may very well be a random act. However, it seems to linger on many people’s mind that the shooting of one of the Mexican Soccer League’s biggest stars is somehow linked to the sport.

Cabanas was happily married. He was not known for wild ‘partying’ or extravagant spending. He was come on and off the field. For years, he carried Football Club America on his back and was the leading scorer of Paraguay’s National Squad: what could have incited someone to target him?

No sport seems to be haunted by violence as much as soccer, as the World Cup approaches and questions about South Africa’s security preparations continue, events like this (If it DOES turn out to be related to the game) is bound to not only affect fan’s attendance but also  put athlete’s own participation in question.

Cabanas is now in stable but critical condition. Doctors hope that due to his being young and healthy he will be able to recover but he is yet to pass the critical hours

The Politics of Poverty

 

However insensitive it may seem to some to make politics of the horrible tragedy that has occurred in haiti, leaving almost 200,000 dead, the disaster that targeted the nation of haiti was not a natural disaster—it was a disaster of apathy and neglect.

 

Haiti is the poorest nation in the western Hemisphere. The same nation was shaken last year by a tropical storm and hurricane. 

 

The problem was the infrastructure. The problem is that any natural ‘disaster’ that strikes this poor island is bound to be catastrophic due to the faulted foundations.

 

The nation has not only been mired by financial and developmental it has also been haunted by political turmoil with both being intrinsically linked.

 

In the immigration debate, at least in Florida, there has been a low, growing murmur seeking to fight for the Haitians in the state. For years, the discussion has been for one of economic refuge, much as the Cubans seeking political refuge in the states.

 

The South Florida government must live with the fact of the thousands of people dead today that had attempted to migrate here and were turned back upon arrival while Cuban (and at times South American) citizens were allowed to stay, immediately welcomed and aided in becoming integral parts of this country.

 

 

In the day of Genoa treaties and globalization which is more dangerous: being the poorest country in the hemisphere or being the only communist country in the western hemisphere?

And the Oscar Goes to… (Part I)

The plotlines surrounding Central American politics are playing out like a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s so hard to know where to start. There’s military coups, there’s post mortem accusations, there’s…cell phones?

 

Whackamala

The first Central American ‘hiccup’ happened in Guatemala earlier this year when a high profile lawyer was murdered while riding his motorcycle. Exciting, huh? And you thought all these countries had were violent insects and good fruit.

 

It gets better. Said lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenberg, released a video the day after his death blaming none other than the Guatemalan president Alvaro Colom Caballeros and his personal secretary, Gustavo Alejos. Rosenberg believed that if he was assassinated it was due to his involvement in the case of Khalil Musa and Marjorie Musa.

 

Khalil Musa was a businessman that was brought on as part of the board of Guatemala’s rural development Bank. It is thought that Khalil and his daughter Marjorie were assassinated when Musa refused to take part in illicit transactions at the bank.

 

Protesters flooded the streets to call for the resignation of the president, even though there was no evidence asides from the tape (and who can believe a martyred lawyer). The FBI and UN offered to help with the investigation.

 

Guatemala has been facing civil crisis in its short, 13 years of democratic history and these claims do not help the situation at all. There has been constant violence within the country from both the left and right of the political spectrum (Colom is the first leftist president in the country’s history).

 

Teaser: The Hydra Headed Chupacabra: As the pressure on Colom began to subside more fuel was added to the fire when Jean Anleu reacting to supposed government corruption (including the Rosenberg murder) tweeted for depositors to remove their money form the Guatemalan rural development bank. He could face up to five years in prison for illegally undermining trust in the Guatemalan Banking System.

 

Aside from the insane precedents created here (not trusting your government is illegal? not trusting the institution publicly linked to a murder scheme including the president) the interesting thing with the Guatemalan case is what a big role technology has played in all of it.

 

The initial Rosenberg video gained worldwide view through YouTube, many of the initial protests were organized through Facebook, and well…tweeting of course.

Proposition 8 Upheld

This isn't about gay rights or homosexuality or the 'sanctity of marriage'. It's too late to get start wars over semantics and separation of church and state.

This is about the political system of the united states. This is about democracy and what it means. Who holds the power, the people or the court? What should the people be allowed to determine and what is a true majority?

The court was unlikely to overturn the will of the people, even if the will of the people was so muddled. It was also unlikely to 'divorce' 18,000 people. For such a liberal state its strange that judges should take such a strict constructionist action without realizing the precedent they are creating.

The court made a cowardly decision, with the motive of angering the least amount of people while clearly favoring one. The court had a chance to establish the rights of the minority. The idea of majority rule that pervades through our political system has always stood alongside minority rights. How do millions of people, with no real stakes in the issue, allow themselves to rule on it?

If so many of the ground breaking moments of our history had been put to a minority vote, the great progress on slavery and segregation is unlikely to have happened. That is not to compare the gay civil rights movement to the African American civil rights movement. That is a huge mistake. It is not the same fight, but it is a fight none the less.

The only chance California has is to put another Proposition on the ballot, since this last one barely passed. However, its time to look at the bigger picture. The picture beyond the rights just stripped away without the least guilt. It's time to look at what the court has said: Majorities, bare majorities, can take away the rights of minorities.

This should not be taken lightly. Who will be the next ostracized group that through propaganda will be oppressed by the Majority? What should such Majority be? A mere 51%?

For people so set on holding Majority rule, it sure didn't pan out that way when it came to electing Bush to the White House, where Gore had the majority there too, but even then there is things in effect to counteract the power of the majority to help the 'smaller states'. If we're willing to defend the rights of a state, why not defend the rights of a people?

1%. That's what determined the difference in California. That's what took away the rights to a whole group of people, and under what pretense?

Can the majority back up their choice without resorting to religious rhetoric? A factor, that has no right to impose itself on the political system . This is not just a travesty to the gay community but to the American political system because aside from what you will believe, and you have you're right to believe so the basic foundation of American politics has been broken, an ideal that was clear to the MINORITY that decided to create this nation in the first place, what if the majority had been allowed to rule then?

It really is shameful. It is not only shameful that the court would uphold this, it is shameful that the proposition made it on the ballot. It is shameful that this proposition passed.

It is shameful that 50% of Californians believe they have the right to take other people's rights away and it is shameful that the court has rewarded that behaviour.

I'd like to believe Judges ruling in a high court could understand the simple principle of Majority rule, minority rights.

The Gambler by Dostoyevsky

The Gambler, a short novella, by Dostoyevsky surrounds many of the psychological and 'moral' themes common to Dostoyevsky's work. There is obsession, love, and vice. There is of course the usual generalizations:focusing on his own Russians but attacking the Germans, Poles, and especially the French.

The characters are hard to empathize with, but they are given just enough humanity to not make them entirely hateful. It would serve well to have at least one character with noble motives, so as to not give the work the dark tone, at times insufferable tone, it develops.

The first two-thirds start off slow, with Dostoyevsky straying a bit from his usual style. IT ultimately serves as simply a set up for the climax and denouement of the story which are the true beauty of it.

As many of Dostoyevksy's works, the work improves steadily as it progresses both in style and in content. There does seem to be a jolt, as the time gaps between the journal entries become longer but it really is worth suffering through. The climax of the story is almost absent, as it it is told in retrospect but it does not make the emotional debris it leaves behind any less poignant.