The Proletariat Congress

Or at least that’s what Mike Huckabee, a Republican candidate, running for the presidential nomination would have you think. If he had his way, he’d have everyone thinking that civilization would somehow keel over if gay marriage existed, never mind that it does and that there are a few nations in the world where it actually does exist and surprisingly, chaos and anarchy hasn’t broken out here. Society hasn’t fallen to shambles.

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

You mean, kind of like forcing people from different cultures to accept your definition of ‘family’, sort of like that? This is one case where the attempt to hide the contempt for the rights for a group is obvious. Huckabee is pandering to the religious right and their irrational fear that homosexuals will some how destroy society and the sanctity of marriage by getting married themselves.

If anything has supposedly upset the sanctity of marriage, it would have been the introduction of ‘divorce’ during the reign of King Henry VIII when the Vatican refused to annul his marriage. Of course, it wasn’t such a big deal then because people had greater things to worry about, such as just… surviving.

The 20th century saw the surge in the rate of divorce. This is tied closely to women’s suffrage and the feminist movement, that gave them equal rights, as well as the right to be equal to men. This was a good thing, but it did open up the way for people to get divorced because the woman wasn’t forced to rely on the man who could determine if she was able to leave. She was no longer forced into subservience.

Homosexuals have not done anything to ‘violate’ the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals are very capable of doing it on their own and are very professional about it. In fact, they can be so good at it, that they may marry and divorce multiple times, (ie: Rudy Guiliani, another Republican candidate). Heterosexuals have proven they are very able in their destruction of the sacred institution known in some circles as “Holy Matrimony”. Even more, sans divorce, heterosexuals are more than able on their own to destroy it by engaging in extra-marital affairs with others, regardless of gender.

Of course, any good conservative Christian will ignore this because well, it doesn’t count because it’s not homosexuals trying to invade the realm of marriage and pollute the minds of young children, letting them know that homosexuality is not some fearsome boogeyman that will leap out from under your bed at night and consume you whole.

For the same group, the title of ‘civil union’ is not acceptable either…

Because it really is a precursor toward marriage. Once the government says this relationship is in essence similar to or equal to a marriage—we’re not going to call it that, but that’s what it is—and you grant it the same basic rights as marriage, then you’ve effectively done it.

Maybe because it is the same thing. If it smells like dung, it looks like dung then it’s probably, dung. You can call it whatever you want and it’ll still be the same in the end. But is that really a reason why it can’t be granted? In fact, can’t ‘civil union’ be applied to heterosexual couples? Especially to those who loath the idea of marriage in front of the clergy? Or for those who just don’t believe in all that meaningless ritualistic hocus-pocus?

Along the same vein, but moving on, I can think of at least one nation where there is homosexual marriage and society hasn’t fallen apart, in fact, there were two notable marriages that occurred under the new law and were publicised when they did happen. I speak of course of Canada. Same sex marriage is legal here and two notable public figures who have on two different occasions tied the same sex knot are Scott Brison and Greg Smitherman.

Other nations that have legalised gay marriage, only to see society tick along as if nothing happened were: Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa and the strongly Catholic nation of Spain. Plenty more have legalised civil unions, the first step toward legalising marriage for homosexuals. These nations include: Andorra, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

It should be noted that of the nations listed where civil unions are legal, there are a few that are paving the way for same sex marriage, but the issue is being debated at the moment. France, UK, Portugal, Finland and New Zealand are paving the way for the final phase in their nations, yet it has not rained fire and brimstone on those nations for their decision to make that leap forward.

Yet there are still candidates in the US that seem to think that being gay is some how a bad thing; that gay marriage will cause civilization to implode on itself, that we will incur “God’s” wrath for engaging in such sin; as though Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and other “holy” books are actually true despite being riddled with falsehoods and being nothing more than shallow folklore that has no moral bearing on the modern world. That if we did violate the “word” of “God” that we would burn in hell for all eternity…

Here’s my closing thought for this post: anyone else find it amusing that when politicians are outed for being gay in the US, it’s never the Democrats, it’s always the Republicans? And if there are gay Democrats, they don’t bother to hide it in the first place. Some act like Americans would not accept a gay politician. Yet according to a 1999 Gallup poll:

• 95% would vote for a woman
• 94% would vote for a Catholic
• 92% would vote for a Jew
• 92% would vote for a black
• 79% would vote for a Mormon
• 79% would vote for a homosexual
• 49% would vote for an Atheist

Even if the war being fought by America’s soldiers is highly unpopular on the homefront, the soldiers at the end of the day are still human beings. They were once children like those who have never fought. When they remove their uniforms, they are once again civilians. They may not be perfect but they are still human like other Americans.

They found a career in protecting their nation and being the first to take up arms, even when their country’s administation has its collective head in the sand ignoring the cold hard facts.

They are no different than anyone else at the day’s end. They still have families and bills to pay. They just want to earn a living like the rest of the American public.

The soldiers in all branches of the US armed forces are glorified in recruitment drives; their achievements are paraded before the media and the world. The army is shown doing good, and the men and women who serve as the heart and soul are shown in uniform, standing proud.

And shall they fall in battle, their casket, loyally draped with Old Glory is whisked off the plane for a funeral befitting of a soldier who has fallen in battle

But, behind the stars and strips lies a darker side. Until recently, it went undocumented, slipping beneath the infinite rada of the media.

There are those who come home injured and maimed in battle.

They are stuck in the loop of limbo, where they are unable to fight, but not yet in a casket.

They are in military medical centres, which have suffered numerous cutbacks over the years.

They are treated in less than stellar conditions and the facilities are mediocre at best.

In here, tales of neglect exist and to those on the outside seem unrealistic because America is supposed to be a beacon of life, liberty and freedom.

A facility that is supposed to treat and release soldiers, they are left in the care of under-staffed and under-funded system.

Walter Reed was supposed to help restore America’s soldiers, but instead is rife with scandals and other less than pleasant conditions that have forced administrators to resign and for Democrats to call for an internal investigation of the facilities. But all the testimony and investigations would not quell the fact that funding for veterans has been suffered substantial cutbacks in the seven years that Bush and the Republicans have held free reign in office, and even with the Democrats in power, very little will change.

Until something gives, veterans at America’s various medical centres will be the ones who pay the price for political follies, shortcomings and cutbacks.

The Other Side of Walter Reed – The background story and indepth analysis of the scandal.

Walter Reed – a veteran’s blog and account of life there.

Racism is a concept that should be outdated in today’s modern and progressive world, but, in reality, it isn’t. It is alive and well because there are still really ignorant people out there who believe that because someone has a different skin colour that they are somehow morally inferior to the white supremacist (or any other ethnic supremacist group).

To mature as a society, we need to remember the word of a brilliant man, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who once said in a famous speech; one in which he told us about a dream he once had.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

Many of us have learned this; we have learned to judge people by the content of their character; by their souls and their intentions. We judge them on their actions or inactions. But, underneath; on the seedy underside there are still those who believe that you can judge a person by the colour of their skin, and that it is a measure of their character.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.*’

All men, and indeed all people in the eyes of the American Constitution are created equal to each other.

They all have the same right to freedom of expression; freedom of or from religion; freedom of conscience; freedom of association, the right to a speedy trial. These are just some of the inalienable rights given to all Americans. It doesn’t matter who that American is. The only thing that matters is that they are a law-abiding citizen.

The one trouble with this is that it allows any loud-mouth Joe Nobody to make the street corner his soapbox so he can spew his hated-filled agenda and spread his racist propaganda.

The problem is that when these people are censored by those who find their views offensive the people spouting the ignorance will turn around and say that the freedom of speech amendment protects them and their wilful ignorance. Sadly, it’s more than true because hate-speech at this point isn’t entirely illegal in the USA, nor is gathering to speak about such things. The only time it becomes a matter of legality is when there is someone else’s life at stake; when someone is attacked or unable to enjoy their own freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution.

The KKK is considered a growing concern by the ADL because it has not only shown it is regaining some support, but it has also has support from other supremacist groups. They are reported to be working in co-operation with neo-Nazi groups, including the Minnesota-based National Socialist Movement.

[Ku Klux Klan Rebounds with New Focus on Immigration]

The new face of the KKK now stems beyond simply targeting those who are people of colour and embracing the anti-Semitic sentiments of the neo-Nazi groups that they have become associated with in their rebirth.

The only real known way to eradicate such lines of thought is through education and liberal policies that embrace the ideas behind a multi-cultural pluralistic society. As tolerance and acceptance can be taught, racism and discrimination is also taught.

By dispelling myths and untruth the barriers of racism can be knocked down and turned to rubble like the ancient ruins of Pompeii. Racism should be something we learn about in history, not something we learn on the streets through the intolerance and stupidity of people unwilling to accept racism is unaccepted in the cultural mosaic of the 21st century; that democracy means acceptance of diversity.

That immigrants help hold together the colour fabric of society; they add a patch to the quilt.

Targeting people who have immigrated to your nation illegally is one thing, as they have broken the law and slip ahead of the honest folks, seeking to come to a new nation the proper way.

Targeting immigrants simply because they are immigrants is sheer ignorance.

Are immigrants taking our jobs? How do you expect them to make money and otherwise become a integral part of society and a member that not only takes but gives back? Logically, yes, they are taking our jobs only because one immigrant may be more qualified for a certain job over someone who was born in America.

While the illegal immigrants are too taking jobs, they shouldn’t be the target of racism; they are the government’s responsibility. They government was asleep at the switch and these people slipped under their radar. It is not the place of racist vigilantes to police America. Their blind ignorance allows them to believe that anyone who looks a certain way is therefore automatically an illegal alien.

* “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1776, Declaration of Independence

The American government wants to consolidate the different license requirements and regulations from each state into one national standard, so that whenever a person applies for a driver’s license in the US, they are meeting the same requirement as someone in another part of the country.

On the surface, it’s a pretty good idea. It ensures that everyone who has the license meets the same standards and that the testing done in one state is the same as another, so there is no room left for discrimination or odd laws that would either make it too easy or insanely difficult to acquire the license.

Now to some, this would seem like an attempt to move towards a National ID system. What anti-ID proponents tend to forget when comparing programmes like this to a National ID programme is that a driver’s license is 101% optional, that is, unless you want to drive. But, until then, it’s optional. Of course for some drivers, the license itself seems to be optional, just as turn indicators and car insurance.

While some states are welcoming this, others (notably, lawmakers in 34 states) have decided that they just don’t want to place nice. These states include: Arizona, where license renewal is a joke, a real joke, as well as Utah and a few of the ‘blue’ states. The 34 states who have joined are part of a coalition effort started by Missouri state Rep. James Guest, a Republican.
If they did comply, instead of putting out a legislation that strictly opposes the Real ID programme that the National Driver’s License programme would use in order to standardise all licenses into a single ID that can be used for a number of things including boarding a plane and in some instances, opening a bank account.

The problem with non-Real ID identification cards is that once there is the standard, most Americans in states that are anti-Real ID will find that they are unable to do a number of things they were able to in the past because they non-Real ID licenses will not be compliant with the systems in place, and will pose a problem for everyday Americans who rely on that card for key transactions.

The legislators who are anti-Real ID will have to answer to disgruntled voters who find that their otherwise valid licenses fail to achieve what the holder wants to do. Yet, some people may tolerate that small set back if they are of the firm belief that this programme to nationalise the driver’s license is one step closer to a National ID programme, where everyone would have to carry mandatory papers.

For state legislators, there may be a silver lining in this otherwise dark gloomy overcast. It appears that there is support in Washington that would seek to derail the existing law.

In addition to the fears that this would lead to mandatory ID, there are also concerns arising that this will aid more than deter identity theft, a sensitive issue for Americans, who find themselves surrounded by unscrupulous individuals ready to capitalise on people’s fears and employ social engineering to exploit those fearful of identity theft.

While something may appear to sound ok on the surface, once you get past the tip of the iceberg, beneath lies all the dank secrets and horrors that no man dare contemplates.

What does it mean for Americans? They’re back at square one in the War on Terror and they are no closer to deterring identity thieves.

States take action to oppose national driver’s license