E-mail From the ACLU

I just received this e-mail from the ACLU, and I thought it was important to share in case anyone didn't get it.  In just 3 months we've done some amazing things!

Here's their message:

                                                                            

In the three months since ACLU Action launched, hundreds of thousands of us have stood together to secure crucial victories in the fight for civil liberties. So before we all go off to enjoy fireworks and family barbecues for the Fourth of July, we want to take a moment to celebrate all that we've done together:

• We smashed CISPA. After we learned CISPA would have allowed private companies to hand over our personal information to government agencies (setting the stage early on for our most recent fight against NSA spying), over 50,000 ACLU Action supporters and a big coalition of partners demanded that President Obama promise to veto CISPA if it passed Congress. Then to turn up the heat, hundreds of us chipped in money to take out a full-page ad in Politico, which hit the desks of almost every politician on Capitol Hill. It worked. President Obama issued his veto threat and CISPA failed to move.


• DOMA is history. Edie Windsor had been married to her partner Thea Spyer for years, but after Thea's death they were treated as strangers under federal law. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edie and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. This was an incredible moment in a long journey (the ACLU took its first LGBT rights case in 1936), but the fight is not over. In 37 states same-sex couples still cannot marry, so we've just launched a major push to fight for marriage equality in states across country.
  
  Want to stay up to date with the latest news and actions? Like ACLU Action on Facebook.


• Animal abuse whistleblowers in Tennessee won't be jailed. Ag-gag bills that seek to suppress undercover investigations of the inhumane treatment of animals in factory farms have been popping up in a number of states. With our allies in the animal welfare community, over 30,000 ACLU Action supporters pressured Tennessee Governor Haslam to stop ag-gag legislation, ensuring that whistleblowers are not criminalized for practicing free speech. On May 13th, the Governor vetoed the bill.


• Bayli Silberstein secured her right to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. After her year-long fight to form a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club at her school, over 50,000 ACLU Action supporters stepped up to stand with 14-year-old Bayli against the school board's proposal to ban all extra-curricular clubs. We flew a plane banner over their board meeting, packed with hundreds of supporters, to make sure they heard our message. The board finally relented when faced with a lawsuit and Bayli's GSA is now able to meet, affirming Bayli and other students' right to organize freely against homophobia.


• Private companies can no longer patent our natural DNA. Myriad Genetics' patents on two important genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) make critical tests for genetic predisposition to cancer inaccessible for many people - like our client, Kathleen Maxian, who is now living with late-stage ovarian cancer. Kathleen's story became the centerpiece of our petition demanding the United States Patent and Trademark Office stop issuing gene patents. Soon after, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor that companies like Myriad cannot patent genes, opening the door for more women like Kathleen to be fully informed of their cancer risks.

This is only the beginning of what we as a community can achieve when we come together to defend all of our rights and liberties. 

Join us on Facebook - and stay connected to the movement to ensure the great promise of liberty is a reality for everyone in our country.

Between last week's Supreme Court decision to curtail the power of the Voting Rights Act, our ongoing struggle against the surveillance state and the battle raging in Texas right now to limit the personal health decisions of women, we know there is still much left to do. Let's keep at it together!

Thank you for making all of these wins possible.
Anthony and the ACLU Action team 

                                                                                 

I hope you're all as exited as I am about these actions.

Affirmative Action is the Treatment of a Symptom

I am a loyal listener to Citizen Radio, which is a more or less political, mostly comedic, progressive podcast.  I do agree with most things they say, as a progressively-minded person, but I do also take issue with some stuff.  For example, they say everyone should stop smoking for political, financial, and health reasons, and I'm a smoker, yes, but they are right.  I think they're not focusing on the right issue in this aspect.  However, I think the issue is very complicated, obviously with the history of advertising and they way the tobacco companies function, but people should have the choice to be a cigarette smoker if they choose without the government or society looking down on them for that choice.  But that's just because I like being able to choose my actions in a country that prides itself on freedom. 

The main thing I take issue with, though, is that they are the kind of White progressives that are racist against White people.  I'm not saying that White people haven't really fucked with minorities in serious ways that have carried over to today's landscape.  I'm also not saying that I'm not privileged simply for being White, because I am.  But I do think that the blanket statements of saying all White people are essentially evil is very offensive.  I am very not racist, am very socially and politically aware, but the fact that I am White does not make me an asshole.  Though, their language implies that it does.

But this is a problem with a lot of progressives that I have dealt with.  I felt it for a while in high school, too.  It goes along with a blanket hatred for living in the United States and being a United States citizen and fantasizing about moving to a better place without even wanting to make this place better.  Those other places that you want to move depended on their citizens to make that place what it is.  The United States deserves that from us, as well.

It's almost as if these White people that hate White people are jealous that a lot of "minorities" have had a rough time of it, and they haven't, and they feel that that makes their experiences less valid.  I mean, one of the things the hosts basically bragged about for the majority of the time I've listened to the show is that they were homeless and lived in their car for a while, as if that made what they have to say more respected.  It wasn't until one of their listeners emailed in concerned that someone they loved was considering being homeless that it actually came out that they were not really homeless, they only slept in their car once or twice the whole time (a year or more), they mostly stayed at friends' houses, and that it isn't something that they would really recommend.  Progressives, a lot of the time, value hardships.  I guess that's a thing in US culture, though.  We always root for the underdog, and being the underdog and coming out of it is something to respect.

Last night I was listening to Friday's episode of Citizen Radio, "A minor meltdown, followed my Domes.org's Heather McGhee", where they had a guest talking about affirmation action.  Heather McGhee, the guest, basically said that one of the reasons affirmative action is important, or the most important, is because it provides a diverse college experience for people going to college.  Jamie, one of the hosts, excitedly said, "You don't want to be around the table with, like, the bosses, and like, some giant corporation and that's when you learn that's not appropriate for a White person to quote the Chris Rock difference between White people and n-word bit."  But, would anyone do that?  Diversity is obviously something that is very important, but it shouldn't be the reason a person gains experience or prestige.  In fact, I would find that pretty insulting (which is addressed in the 30 Rock episode "Lee Marvin vs. Derek Jeter").  The issue isn't race, and people who don't want affirmative action don't want all races or ethnicities to be literally seen the same.  No.  Diversity is super important, but we're looking at the issue from the wrong side.  The issue is CLASS.  Economic class. Period.

The thing is, minorities do tend to come from poorer neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods don't have as good schools as richer neighborhoods.  Look at No Child Left Behind.  Public schools that do well on their tests get more money and schools that don't get less.  Before NCLB, the rich schools probably were better funded because of the rich neighborhoods they existed in, and vise verse.  It would make sense if the schools that were not doing as well got more money because they would be able to afford better facilities, more and better teachers and IAs, more up to date textbooks, more and better college prep courses, and better extracurricular activities that would benefit the students.  These students are the ones that need this because it's more likely that their parents won't have the time or educational background to enforce educational achievements or the money to pay for private tutoring, whereas in rich neighborhoods their parents are more likely to have the time and educational background and money to devote to their child's education.  They are less likely to have to have three jobs in order to house and feed their kids, you know.

But this is what we should be focusing on.  I agree, diversity is important.  Yes, that was one of the best parts of my going to New Mexico State University.  Yes, if you're from a poor neighborhood, you should be provided with more scholarship opportunities, but even then, if university is so important, it should be free.  I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that at this point; that college has become so important that it should become a public and private situation in the same way as public and private schools function, at least initially.  Everyone should have the opportunity to go to college, anyway.  However, my experience trying to find an undergraduate medical internship should not have been so hard simply because I'm White.  I can't help my background just as much as anyone else.  If we want the playing field to be even, we need to start with public elementary, middle, and high schools, not college.  The mindset of affirmative action is inherently racist, whether it benefits minorities or puts them down, because it depends solely on the person's race/ethnicity.

The opportunity to go to a good school should start at public schools, evening out the competitive edge rich people have, whether they are Which or Asian or Black or Hispanic or Whatever.

Update:  The Citizen Radio hosts addressed this issue by basically saying that the institutional racism by people of minorities has been a problem for so long that Affirmative Action still needs to happen.  Ok, that makes sense, except for the fact that it is illegal to not hire someone for being a certain race/ethnicity.  It is totally legal, though, to hire someone because they're of a minority.  It's also legal to not hire someone of a certain culture, because those people represent your company, and if they don't have the correct appearance or style of language they can not be hired.  Those kinds of things are like tattoos and piercings and a style of language, all of which are more common amongst people who feel disinfrancised for whatever reason... usually because they are of a lower class.

Allison, the other host, says, "I'm confused as to why it's an either or thing.  Why can't we give a leg up, if you will, to both poor people and Black people who happen to be overwhelmingly, uh, [systematically oppressed (Jamie)] poor as well, though.  I just don't see why we have to have the Suffering Olympics and help one group without... you know, I think..."  And then she gets cut off by Jamie and they start talking about Pell Grants.  (Where, might I point out, they started talking about how the benefit of Pell Grants was that it was focused on poor people, regardless of race, and that it needs to be better funded now.  This seems a little hypocritical to me, if race is such an important issue.)

The thing is, Allison, it is not an either or thing.  If Affirmative Action was aimed and giving poor communities in general a leg up, race and ethnicity would never be an issue.  Yeah, there would still be racists, but having a different kind of racism does nothing to help the actual issue.

Then Jamie says, "One of the reasons I tend to put race a little above class is because at the same time poor people of all colors were being fucked, I mean, you gotta remember that Black people weren't allowed in the same college, I mean, pretty recently.  You know, Black people, like, there was segregated schools, there was segregated everything."  Notice how it's all in the past tense?  Sounds like our host here has a bit of White guilt himself.  Seriously, I think that's what defending Affirmative Action is about, the reason it was put into place in the first place, especially when his co-host says this:

"And this is a great way to keep the 99% fighting.  Because we are fighting over crumbs were as if we tax the 1% at a slightly higher rate there would be enough funds for everyone to go to college!  But!  If the poor White are too busy fighting the poor people of color then there's never a collision, there's never organization, there's never direct action."  I agree completely, Allison!  Affirmative Action is a way to keep people of lower classes fighting against each other over something as stupid as race and ethnicity!  Poor people of all races and elasticities should be standing together as a way to tell those in power that what is happening to them and their communities is not ok.

I was talking to my father, who is a scientist for the government, about this, and he was complaining that because of Affirmative Action so many people get raises because they are "Hispanic" (remember, I live in New Mexico where the majority of the minorities is "Hispanic").  That's probably true, but the thing is, those people are scinetists for the government, where everyone has at least a B.S.  Their getting a raise based solely on their ethnicity is unfair because at that point, isn't everyone on equal footing?  They don't really need a leg up on White people, do they?  And wouldn't it be more satisfying to get a raise based on how hard you work or the quality of that work apposed to a government requirement for more minorities in managerial positions?

As sort of an aside, I read an ethnography called In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, by Phillippe Bourgois.  Basically, Bourgois pointed out that the best choice for the people in this neighborhood is to sell crack because not only do they have respect in their community as a crack dealer, but they also stop using when they sell.  There was a section of the book talking about when people tried to go straight, that is, getting a job that is legitimate legally; when the did, they had little to no respect in their jobs, were talked down to by their employers on a regular basis, and had no opportunity to move up in the company because they did not have the correct representation of what the company wanted.  These people were minorities, obviously, but they also were not Black, they were Mexican or Puerto Rican (I don't remember), and were put down for how they were and how they spoke and how they acted.  These are the issues that need to be addressed - socioeconomic issues.  If these people weren't raised in a culture or selling crack and understood that there is a way to gain respect without it, and actually had the opportunity, means, and motivation from those around them to follow through with this alternative, they wouldn't have had the go-to of selling crack.  And their public education was step one.  It's not a race thing.  We should send money to these schools because there are Latinos there.  We should send money to these schools because they don't have any.  (Also, fixing the whole War on Drugs thing would be nice, but that's a separate issue.)


I also think I should point out that, after high school, I do not have "White guilt."  Yes, a lot of White people were assholes in the past, but I had nothing to do with that.  So, no, I don't feel guilty for something I didn't do.  Sorry to disappoint.

Economic Problem Solution

Let's get rid of money!!  How, you ask?


Robot slaves.

First, I'll say I do not take issue with the term "slave" in this case.  These robots are meant to act like the machines they are, and are never meant to become sentient, unlike many of the science fiction issues with robots that have arisen.  "Slave" similar to they way our computers and cell phones are slaves.  So, ok, tools, I guess.


The idea is: we create robots to do all of the work so that we don't have to.  That way, we can have food, products, free time, health... it would be great!  Then humans can spend all of their time worried about whatever they want to worry themselves with.  This does not mean that we could not also contribute to the work-system that would be put into place, but the thing is, we would only be contributing because it would make us happy to, say, own and run a farm or well, maintaining the robots.  There would be no need for government or money.  It would be for the pure joy of hard work, which is essential to the human experience.  We could get out from under the thumb of Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Oil, Big Corporations.  We could feed ALL of the hungry people in the world.  We could house all of the homeless.  We could travel anywhere, at any time.  We could worry about being good people instead of being assholes for the cash.  Fabulous.

 Moreover, the environment would no longer be an issue.  Without the constant squashing of earth-friendly energy by the oil company money, scientists would be free to work on and develop there energies freely.  There would be no issues with funding or exposure.  We would just implement the most sustainable lifestyles with no cost to anyone.

And since we are no longer constantly trying to gain resources, and no government means no more need for reinforcing power structures; there would be no more war, no more civil rights abuses, not more genocide.

And on those notes, classes would be meaningless.


Now, as we have all been warmed be the science fiction thought experiments that have been presented to us, the issue of robots becoming self-aware, epithetic, feeling, or thinking is an issue that needs to be addressed before we take this idea seriously.

The Asimov Laws of Robotics

These laws are presented assuming that the laws can be programed into the robots as we understand them in English and that robots are not used as military weapons.

0.  A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1.  A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.  A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Problems with the Laws


The language of the laws requires very specific definitions.  "Human," for example, needs to be able to be applied to every single Homo sapien on the planet. Perhaps some sort of DNA analysis could be the indicator.  This is assuming the the androids we come up with are nothing like the cylons, and are very clearly machines.  Robots must have a very clear distinction between robots and humans and never confuse the two terms.  Period.  Why we would make sentient robots in the first place is beyond me.  Just because you can does not mean you should.

There have been many other Laws presented; these are the most famous.  We should be open to others, and decide on that upon creating the robots.  The greatest minds of the field should work on this, provided they think of the tools here as entirely egalitarian and without any learning or empathy loopholes.  Plus, we probably won't get it right the first time, so it'll be a learning process.  I just don't want the next great war (or the one after) to be humans against machines.  We would probably lose.


Problems with the Solution


Similar to people's issues with communism, a potential problem with this solution is that people will become lazy because they have no reason to work hard.  Perhaps this will happen with some people, but maybe that's just how those people will choose to live their lives.  Others will be adventurers and travelers, philosophers, doctors, artists and writers.  In fact, people would have the ability to do whatever they loved at any time.  I do not believe the meaning of life would be lost, it would just change.  Maybe.  I guess that depends on what you think the meaning of life is for you.  Problem solved.

Well, ok, I'm not naive enough to think that those in charge of distribution and creation initially would have equal power to those who have little or no involvement in this.  I suppose this issue would come to the "divine beauty of the human heart," as it were.  Eventually, ideally, this would no longer be an issue because some sort of formula would come into place that would distribute robots as needed.  We would also need some way of identifying and closely watching the sociopaths of society so that no one would be able to change any programing in favor of total domination, and those people would have no connection to the robots at all in any way other than the layman's interaction.  So, as long as that whole thing worked out, problem solved.



So, you're welcome.  We'll see if the politicians will implement this...  The jerks.

How Can We Fix the Corruption?

Obviously, there is something wrong with our country.

Maybe we would all disagree on what is the cause and what could be the fix, but in general, we all know that the government is completely corrupt and that this needs to change.  We are no longer for or by the people; we are now for and by the cash.

People from all sides of the spectrum are aware of this, but there is no real solution to the problem in sight.  Occupy is doing some really great and interesting things, but really, how is legislation going to be passed to end the corruption by those who benefit from it most?  Occupy can't guide their hands any more than calling our representatives can.  That's not to say neither has impact or that we need to stop trying, by god do we need to continue to try, but neither will convince an unethical person to be ethical. 

Dan Carlin, my favorite political commentator (listen to his show Common Sense with Dan Carlin), agrees that this is the main problem with our government at the moment and other problems there may be stem from this.  He discusses it frequently.  But in his most recent episode (and every so often before), Dan Carlin expressed concern that he's all talk and no action and it's getting depressing.  I don't agree that it's depressing just because I've come to terms with the whole deal.  Frustrating, yes.  And I hope to direct action against the corruption of the government with my career some day, so I'm just being patient.  But Dan Carlin has an idea, and I feel that it would be beneficial to promote it.

Here's his spiel.

"Voting. Legislation. Protests. These are the traditional methods historically used to fill that action-verb void. Those were the “B” in our A to C transition. When those fail, what should be tried?"

Because, really, if corruption did not exist in our system things like marijuana would never have been illegal, for example.  And it definitely would be legal now, federally.  So, we need to do something.  And Dan Carlin is trying to do something to figure out the missing step in fixing our political system, which is more than most people can say.

Check out his twitter to stay updated, @dccommonsense.  It's still in the baby steps, it's pretty foggy, actually, but it could potentially be an exciting thing to be involved in.

Unsolicited Advice for Occupy

Everyone hates the police when they get caught doing something bad.  Like taking a cookie without asking or intentionally disobeying the rules.  But for Occupy protesters in the United States, and for peaceful protesters throughout the world, police brutality has become the main reason to be rather upset and let loose a little "Fuck the police."

Since the Occupy movement is based on being peaceful and changing the system (for whatever reason you think it needs to change), and claiming that the movement represents the 99% of the population, police need to be on the side of Occupy.  I know that they have been a little testy.  I mean, in one protest the a window was broken by a cop smashing a peaceful, non-resisting protester's head through a window.  I'm sorry, I meant protester medic.  I don't mean to qualify this guy as more important than the average peaceful, non-resisting protester, but it is pretty ironic that someone there to help people who get hurt gets smashed into a window. 

But the cops need to be behind Occupy is Occupy is going to be successful.  Period. 

Allison Kilkenny on her and Jamie Kilstein's podcast Citizen Radio said that it would take a Buddhist calm to be able to protest in favor of cops.  Well, too bad, that's the point: forgiveness and calm and having a right-mind.

And a perfect opportunity has presented itself.  The Chicago PD who worked during the NATO protests may not be getting paid their overtime.  I guess specifically, the police officers' contract states that the officers can be paid either in money or in time off.  However, the officers that worked during the NATO summit in Chicago were issued overtime slips with the "money" box already checked, giving the officers no option for time off.   Occupy should demonstrate in their favor.

The officers that worked the NATO Summit's protest were not all super.  Citizen Radio did have a great three episode series talking about the NATO protests, if you would like to hear specifically how the cops behaved, including multiple cops attacking one journalist and telling people to get off the sidewalk while pushing people onto the sidewalk and then arresting them.  And all that.

But if we want to avoid pushing our country further toward a police state, we need to have the cops on the side of the citizens.  Unfortunately, the cops work under the mayor, and the mayor is a politician, and politicians are in the pockets of the evil Monopoly Men.

He actually pretty much just looks evil.

Sports!

I enjoy watching sports, and sometimes playing them if I'm not too horrible at it.  Professional sports, however, very much get under my skin.  The main reason for this is the ridiculous amount of money that is being made, and how that is never enough for even the highest paid athletes.  It seems very frequent that I hear about one sport or another bitching about who's going to get the fucking billions of dollars being made.  Trillions, probably.

And I think that is selfish.

 Mario and Luigi would never pull that shit.

Maybe Wario.

Definitely Bowser.

Given, I've never had that much money, so I don't know how it could corrupt one's mind.  But I would like to think that any decent and reasonable person (both of which I assume I am), would not just be absurdly rich and whine for more money and that be that.  They would give the money away to those in need.  We all know that these days, many, rather, most are in need.  The vast majority, actually.

I was having this conversation the other day with some people that do know and enjoy watching sports.  Each one of them agreed that the pay system is ethically wrong, and it needs to be changed.  One person suggested that we change it so that everyone starts with about $100,000 for the year and if the team wins, they get a bonus, and if they lose, they get a pay decrease.  This was the "socialist solution."  Well, even though we know that this is just a different way of working within the rules of capitalism and he probably misspoke, the idea of a socialist solution is intriguing.

So here's what I was thinking:  Sports players and their posse do deserve to be payed for what they do, as entertainers.  The amount of money is far too high, but it is based on supply and demand, so theoretically, if they were paid less there would be a surplus, and that would have to go somewhere.  As sports teams are meant to represent a specific region of the country or world, why should that money not go back into those communities?  There is always a use for more public hospitals, homeless shelters, infrastructure repair, mental health support, support for our veterans, jobs programs and so on, that the government doesn't have the money for because that money is too preoccupied killing people and destroying cities over seas.  Oh, and bailing out companies that are too big to fail... And some other unethical thing that makes no sense.

I know we have to start small with the whole restructuring our society so it doesn't collapse on itself thing, but why not start with something that the best part of the country loves and respects and idolizes?  I mean, the majority of the inspirational films that have every come out in the United States are based on sports.

If sports are supposed to bring people together, where class and race lines are erased and we are all part of the American family, it needs to show the rest of the country how that is done.  If we are supposed to take this idea that "people who are good at football can achieve their dreams and so can you" seriously we need something other than a good soundtrack and a white woman saving a black man.

Because is that not the point of following a sport - feeling like you belong, like you are a part of the team, and that you have a community?  As far as I understand it, that is the most important reason people participate in spectating.

Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! knows what I'm talking about.

I really do feel that this would be an amazing step in the right direction.  And so symbolic, too.  If the behemoth that is the sport industry, that is something that people talk and think about probably more than any other kind of entertainment, made this change, it would lead the way in changing the way we think.  We need to start thinking in terms of "we" and "community" instead of "I" and "individual."

Go sports!