The US Immigration Controversy

There's been a lot of press about this lately and it's got me going again. First off I do agree that many of the new laws that many states are trying to enact go over the top, but on the other hand I have to say that I can't really support the groups opposing the laws either because many of them seem to have lost track of the fact that many of the people that they are attempting to protect are here illegally. I may not agree with the current laws that govern the immigration of people from other countries to the US, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore them and come in illegally. I also sympathize with the thousands of adult illegals who were brought here illegally by their parents before they could object and who don't remember living anywhere else, but it is not the law that has done them wrong- it is the parents who brought them into this legal predicament in the first place.

I think that in light of the numbers that we are talking about, there does need to be a reevaluation of the way that these cases are handled, but I bristle against the implication that everyone who has grown up here is automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship, even if their very presence is illegal.  US citizens have jumped through the hoops and paid their dues. They and their families should be entitled to the benefits of being a citizen (eg. public education for their kids, decent living conditions and infasctructure, resident pricing for college), and they should not have to take a back seat to people who decided that coming into the country legally was too much trouble and so they were going to sneak in and demand all those benefits anyway.

I would like to see a program put in place that would allow many of the currently illegal residents of our country to acquire citizenship in a timely manner and that would allow for a more reasonable process for people still wanting to come in, but I think that should be accompanied with stiffer regulations to punish those who still refuse to legitimize their residence here. I agree however that the current stance of stiffer regulations with no alternative is wrong, if only because it does effect so many who were drug into this situation before they were old enough to object.

End the War on Drugs

Ok, so this is kind of a broad subject, but let me see if I can keep my point self-evident. Drugs is one of those tricky subjects that people always seem to have an opinion on, but I am sick and tired of hearing people, who obviously don't know half as much about history as they claim, insisting that our forefathers (e.g. George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson) would support the war on drugs that the US is currently waging. The reality is that since most of them WERE drug users of one type of another (mostly marijuana and tobacco, though there is plenty of evidence for occasional use of more hard-core drugs such as cocaine and opium, both of which were commonly used in medical practices at the time), they would be most likely to, at most, support laws on regulating manufacture so that it would be safer.

In my opinion, it is past time to abandon the war on drugs. It is costing a fortune that our country should be using for other things such as improving our infrastructure and reducing the national debt. By continuing the war we are not only wasting money, but we also encourage the drug cartels to continue the way that they have by making the whole thing more profitable, since they are able to charge more for it because it's illegal. This ability to charge more not only increases the income of the drug traffickers, but also encourages others to get involved in order to get a share of the profits.

There is a lot of talk right now in the Americas as a whole about fighting the drug cartels. Mexico, and many south and central American countries are trying to band together to fight the drug lords and their hordes and yet almost all of them freely admit that due to the resources that the drug cartels have at their disposal and the continued income they receive from sales (mostly from the US of course) the governments are fighting a losing battle. Continuing to fight the War on Drugs is only fueling the fire.

My proposal is simple: decriminalize and regulate. If the US was to decriminalize and regulate drugs such as cocaine, opium, meth, and weed, it would be first become much safer to manufacture and consume. Then you would start to see more domestic production, which would reduce dependence on foreign product, increase availability for sale here and bring down prices something fierce. This would in turn cause foreign drug cartels to lose money and power allowing the governments to again regain the upper hand in their countries.

Now this of course is where all the "oh, my gods! Please think of the children!" idiots start up. The same attitude driving these people also ran the movement that outlawed alcohol in prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. When will you learn that outlawing stuff like this only causes more problems, not less. You aren't saving the children- you are encouraging them by making drugs more attractive due to natural human rebellious tendencies and endangering them even more by making acquiring and using drugs more dangerous than it has to be. Take your own advice- THINK OF THE CHILDREN THAT YOU ARE KILLING!  

The "Rights" of Big Business

So I was watching a news podcast on the web yesterday and it got me thinking:: Why have we allowed businesses in the USA to think that they have the same rights as individuals?

Let me back track a step. The report I was watching was regarding the 4 tobacco companies that are suing the government over the warning labels that have been imposed on their products.

First off, I am one of those individuals that believes that cigarettes and other tobacco products, which have been proven to cause/exacerbate a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to lung cancer, really should be counting their lucky stars that they have not been outlawed altogether for all of the extra chemicals and toxic crap that they routinely add to a nearly harmless plant in order to make it more addictive... and more deadly. I really have a hard time understanding why the government and other society leaders still try to insist that Marijuana, another plant that is popularly rolled into tubes of paper and smoked (and with a lot less dangerous side-effects) is somehow infinitely more evil than this industry giant that has more than out lived any usefulness it once had.

Secondly, I have an issue with warning label regulation. Any company that is not being led by idiots will impose such things on themselves in order to protect the company from lawsuits from users who choose to use their product and then regret doing so- if the government has to step in and insist on it then the company was doomed to failure and bankruptcy to begin with. Of course, the government's involvement is meant to protect it's citizens from falling victim to dangerous products, but honestly, I don't know why they bother- most people don't bother to read those warnings anyway and most of the ones who do either wouldn't use the product to begin with, or are looking for material for their stand-up comedy act.

That being said, what truly upset me about this lawsuit was the insistence in the wording that the companies themselves had a right to free speech that was being impinged upon. Anyone one who has read the Constitution of the US and it's bill of rights should be able to tell you that they refer to INDIVIDUALS not businesses, churches or other organizations. Basically what this means is that if the owners of these companies hold a press conference and claim that their product is actually good for you, their is really nothing that anyone can do about it, but if the government determines that the products they produce are harmful (which, of course, they have... repeatedly) then the government is required by it's mandate from it's citizens to impose a warning label on the product itself warning users of the dangers of use and the company can't do anything about it. That is what the law says.

However, there is precedent for their claim- as annoying as it may be to me- thanks to the ruling some years back that campaign contributions, both from an individual AND from a company, was protected free speech. I still don't understand why anyone would hide behind a company name while making a campaign contribution anyway, but personally, finding out that any candidate for an elected position accepted contributions from a large company generally translates in my mind to they don't need my vote.

Top 3 reasons that I am Proud to be American

In honor of today's celebration of our country's freedom, I thought I might take a few minutes to write about some of the things that I love about the USA.

Top of my list is freedom of speech. I love the fact that I can pretty much say or write anything I want without the government being able to stop me and that other people can too. Sure that means that there are going to be people saying some pretty dumb-ass things and pissing people off, but sometimes being able to get people upset is the only way to get them motivated to help change anything. As Jim Henson once said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." 

Without the ability to speak out against whatever we want, the government which is supposed to be working for us could easily turn the tables and enslave us. Luckily our country's founders were well aware of this danger which is why they insisted on making this part of our nations Bill of Rights. In fact this inspires me to add to each of these some commentary about how some people are trying to take these rights away. Starting with FCC's censorship of TV and radio which I think is completely unconstitutional. I'm not saying do away with the FCC- they do have a job to do that makes sense and is completely necessary for civilized use of the airwaves, but I have a real problem with how that job has been warped into an excuse to stifle free speech. Really parents, if you are concerned about your kids watching something that you deem inappropriate for them, there are means to regulate that yourself- don't insist on the government doing it for you.

Number 2 on my list is the right to own a gun. There are a lot of people in our country today that seem to think that this is a right that has out lived it's usefulness, but I couldn't disagree more. In fact I would love to see most gun control laws struck from the law books as unconstitutional because of this fundamental right. In place of such laws, I would much rather see our country make firearm safety a required course in our education system. It is a fact that lots of people die at the wrong end of a gun every year in this country, but if you look a little deeper, it is also a fact that an awful lot of the people holding the guns when they kill simply don't know how to use the damn thing because no one bothered to teach them. It is also a fact that since the implementation of gun laws preventing open carry and regulating firearm acquisition, firearm deaths have actually increased, not decreased-  another fine example of our country shooting itself in the foot (pun definitely intend).

Next on my list is the right to join or abstain from joining the military. Military service is among the most noble things that a citizen of this country can do, but the fact that every one of our soldiers, officers, etc. are there voluntarily is one of our country's greatest strengths. There are lots of people who talk about numbers like the size of China's standing army like somehow bigger automatically equals better, but I would bet on our military against any other nation in the world- firstly because of the extensive and complete training that they receive, but also because when it comes down to it, I don't see how any soldier could possibly trust their life to a fellow soldier who is only their because their government says they HAVE to be. The sheer number of people in those armies that will not give their all because they really don't want to be there should be frightening to their countries, but the fact seems to be that their leaders don't care as long as their numbers are as awesome as possible.

There are some in our country that would argue that you simply can't appreciate freedom if you don't serve, and that seem to think that forcing all young adults to serve would help everyone. Well they are welcome to their opinion, but I am glad that less hypocritical people are in charge. However, I have been disappointed that many of these same people that would wisely refuse to force citizens into service would also choose to stop willing participants from serving based on such a trivial thing as sexual orientation. Who cares what gender they are attracted to? Isn't their right to choose to have a relationship with either gender one of the things that we are trying to protect? I believe that it is commendable that anyone who has the option chooses to protect the rights of not only themselves but also of others and I am boggled by the notion that anyone would say, "Hell, no, you can't defend me! You don't like the same type of relationship I do!" That makes about as much sense as someone not being allowed to work in a sandwich shop because they own a dog.

Wait- What?! I think Feminism has gone too far!

Ok, so I'm talking to my husband last night and he tells me about this article that he read on Reddit about some guy who was married and he and his wife divorced on good terms, but Twenty-Seven Years later she went to a divorce lawyer and refiled their divorce without notifying him and was awarded not only a huge alimony, but also Child Support for 2 kids that she had years later with a second husband. WTF?!?

My initial reaction was complete disbelief, but my husband insisted it was true, so this morning, I went to Reddit myself and tried to find the article myself. I wasn't able to find it, but in the course of my search, I found plenty of examples of other related abuses of the family court laws.

I am not against women's rights, obviously, but I had not been aware of just how far the feminist movement had pushed things like this. Maybe that means I've been sheltered and oblivious, but I think it's about time that some of the rest of us start speaking up. I appreciate the fact that without the feminist movement we women would be second class citizens with very few if any rights, but hey, there's limits!  How did we ever allow it to get so far that men are being forced to pay child support for kids that DNA proves are not theirs? Or that women can seize most of their ex's income when it increases because of his hard work years after she divorces him?

I understand that there are some real creep guys out there that have taken some truly underhanded liberties against women, but how does that justify punishing the ones who aren't doing anything wrong? There are a lot of Men's rights groups that are completely outraged by this kind of thing and I can't say that I blame them, but many of them are talking about starting initiatives to revoke women's rights and repealing laws. Seems to me that there is a full fledged war of the sexes brewing and no matter which way the battle goes things are going to get ugly unless some of us can stop the extremes of both sides from making things worse.

I think we need to start a new movement that looks for equal rights for everyone. I think some serious work needs to be done overhauling all these legal systems that are causing so much anger on both sides and I think it needs to happen soon, or everyone is going to suffer.

Washington State's Budget Cuts to Education

As a concerned parent with 3 kids in online ALE programs and a son in brick and mortar special education, I have been following the proposed budget cuts in my state pretty closely and have participated in the parent/family/friends protests and coordinated mailing and phone call movements urging the government here to look elsewhere for cutting the budget down. But as you can see from this recent article on the community site for the families of online students in this state, our pleas were basically ignored. As a direct result of this legislation, ALE programs, including the online one that my kids attend, will have their state funding cut by 10-20%. Here is an excerpt from a letter that I received about the cuts just this morning:

"The breaking news is that OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Instruction) is right now ruling that the basic education funding for all ALE (Alternative Learning Experience) students will be cut to 80%. An exception is made for students enrolled in an online program that provides an average of one hour per week of synchronous digital contact. Those students will receive 90% of basic education funding .

Online program providers are just getting this news, too. They will need to make changes to their programs to reflect these drastic cuts to funding. Since staffing and curriculum costs typically exceed 80% of the operating costs of online programs, most programs will need to make detrimental cuts to match the funding cuts"

On top of that, cuts were also made to the funding for teacher salaries and pensions, while increasing measures requiring teachers to find ways to reduce the achievement gaps between students, which from what I have seen basically amounts to the government looking for ways to blame the teachers when insufficient appropriate funding and/or lack of parental support  leads to decreased test scores.

I also noticed in looking over a report that I downloaded from WA's OFM that the budget also calls for the creation of a whole new agency to direct school district spending:

"A group of experts is created through the Educational Services Districts to help school districts with financial planning and monitoring."

This group of experts is expected to cost the state $3 million dollars and as far as I can tell is basically just going to add one more layer to the mountain of red tape that the school districts have to wade through in order to do much of anything for our kids.

Let me tell you, if I was a licensed teacher or any other professional for that matter, especially in this economy, I certainly wouldn't stick around in a state that cut my income while at the same time tying my hands and demanding better results, so what exactly is the state's plan here? Are they trying to cut costs by encouraging all the teachers to quit?  what's more how are we supposed to encourage college students to become teachers so we can cut down class sizes and improve education in general if we don't pay them a decent salary and offer reasonable benefits for teachers already in the system. Just one more example of ways that our society is shooting itself in the foot.

Double Standards for Sex Offenders?

I just came across an article that really upset me.
http://femalesexoffenders.com/fso/index.php/the-news/355-rachel-brock-pleads-guilty

Now, first off, I would like to say that I'm not terribly happy with the way that the sex offender lists are supposed to work anyway. When used as intended, the system is set up to basically destroy the chances that any normal semblance of life can be achieved by anyone who has ever failed to use common sense enough to choose a willing sexual partner who is also legally old enough to make that choice. As a parent I fully understand the mentality that would want that, but as a human being that knows that one mistake doesn't define a person I have to protest the idea that all people who have once upon a time committed an error in judgement should be automatically viewed as horrible people for the rest of their lives. But whether I like it or not this is currently the law of the land.

What makes this system even worse in my opinion, is the ease with which the system is abused to punish people who do not deserve it. For example, I personally know a gentleman that as a teenager had a consensual relationship with another teen, but her parents pressed charges for rape and it stuck. Now the poor guy is on the sex offender list for life despite the fact that he was only 16 at the time and his 15 yr old girlfriend was very open about the fact that she had NOT been forced. It's been nearly 15 yrs now and that man is still paying for that one bad choice.

This article, however, led me to discover a whole new way that the system is apparently being abused- by apparently not applying the same rules to women.

I am a big fan of being a woman who has the ability to own property, to vote and press charges against people who actually hurt me, but more and more lately I have been seeing news articles about women who are insisting that they get more lenience on top of it all. I am not a huge fan of the sex offender list program, but if you are going to have a system like that, it needs to be applied equally to everyone. It's no wonder there are so many men's rights groups with rapidly growing numbers! Ladies, if you expect guys to respect you and treat you fairly, you are only shooting yourself in the foot to then turn around and demand special treatment.