Tag Archives: change

Remarks on Sequestration

by Same Air

The mainstream media has plastered headlines regarding sequestration all over the country. What is it? By law, automatic spending cuts amounting to 2.4% of our national budget went into effect last week. Sequestration forces lawmakers to agree to renew spending in certain areas. If they cannot agree, that spending is cut.

  1. These spending cuts are likely artificial. Congress has the ability to retroactively disable cuts, effectively nullifying any reduction in spending. Once a deal is reached, I expect Congress to pass retroactive legislation. 
  2. WE NEED TO SPEND LESS. Spending cuts in this form are automatic. Politically, that means nobody votes to cut anything, nobody pays for it in their re-election primaries, and America gets the spending cuts we need.
  3. This sequestration is 2.4% of our $3.5 trillion dollar federal budget. Let’s all take a deep breath. We will be okay.
  4. Departments and regions facing larger portions of the cuts have already piped up. The defense department in particular called these cuts dangerous. What I believe is dangerous is to spend more on defense than the closest nine countries combined (8 of which are our allies). The LAST people I am interested in hearing from is the Pentagon.

We are recovering. We all need to do more with less. Tax the people who take advantage of this country to make up the difference.

3 Simple Reasons to Vote No

by Same Air

1. .Defining marriage does not help the family. Rather, it may harm families.

The argument is commonly made that defining marriage between one man and one woman will keep families intact. “One man and one woman raising children together is fundamental to the American way of life. The family unit, a basic social institution, must function this way to properly rear the next generation of citizens.” I do not seek to prove or disprove this claim. I must wonder, though, the proposed amendment before us relates to the claim. How does defining marriage promote healthy relationships between heterosexuals? How does it promote safe, responsible child-rearing practices? Defining marriage is not an incentive to heterosexual couples to provide stable, loving homes for children. Rather, it seems to prevent some from providing such homes who may otherwise do so. This reminds me of an old Virginia marriage law that prevented White people from marrying any other race. Virginia claimed this preserved racial integrity. However, the law only restricted White marriage. It did not say that marriage between a Black person and an Asian person was restricted. In effect, the law was about preserving White racial integrity rather than racial integrity in general. The plain language of the law was betrayed by it’s agenda.

Existing same-sex couples with children will be unable to unify their families under the term marriage. This will prevent couples from accessing the 1,000+ benefits of a federally recognized marriage. For example, if two unmarried women raise a child together and one of those women should pass away unexpectedly, the other has no legal right to the custody of the child. Read about other benefits here or here. I also imagine some harm would come when children must learn the reason that their parents are unable to become married, that their relationship is not recognized nor offered the same validity as opposite-sex couples.

2. Tradition is never eternal and should always be questioned.

To some, I believe it seems logical to legislate this type of marriage definition. After all, we’ve been doing it this way for an awful long time, right?  I do not believe that tradition deserves the status of law. History does not always point us in the proper direction nor give us the best advice, but since tradition is grounded in history, it makes sense to take a look at the history of marriage. Marriage began as a power relationship, as a way to unite kingdoms. It had little to do with attraction or love. Rather, marriage was a tool of elites that forced their children to come together. Long story short: princess marries prince, daddy gets a bigger kingdom, more laborers, more taxes, etc. Parents decided and agreed on their children’s spouses. The lower classes were often prevented from marrying. Then, a few centuries ago, people began marrying for that mystical enchantment known as love. Even then, though, marriage was structured a certain way. The husband has duties that involve A, B, and C. The wife was expected to do X, Y, and Z. Anything the wife owned became property of her husband. Wives relinquished legal standing as well. Husbands could not be charged with rape. Marriage was 100% patriarchal  More recently, marriage has become a partnership of two free individuals who can organize their relationship as they choose. We’ve got joint checking accounts, husband and wife can vote (differently, if they choose), and women are legally recognized and thereby protected. My point here is that the tradition behind marriage has spent its existence slowly shifting forms. To write into law one particular form seems quite temporary and, today, discriminatory.

3. Marriage is a right and excluding some from that right is illegal without due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a legal right. To deny some that right without due process of law violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In my view, defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a neutral way to define marriage in a way that excludes same-sex couples. Those couples, being entitled to the right of marriage in the same way all Americans are, have been stripped of their right without any legal process or review. I believe this to be illegal.

Frederick Douglass makes another point quite clear”  ”This struggle may be a moral one, it may be a physical one, or it may be both, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.”

VOTE NO NOVEMBER 6TH.

News: Secret Mitt Romney Recording – 47% Depend on Government

by Same Air

This is blowing up all over. A recently released recording appears to contain presidential nominee Mitt Romney declaring that 47% of the electorate will vote for President Obama because they believe they are entitled to luxuries such as food, housing, and medical care. Here is the video as it was originally posted:

Maybe Mitt should have read How to Blame the Poor. He is not doing a very good job.

He seems to believe that he needs to disregard the interests of roughly half of the nation during this election. I believe what Mittens was getting at was the swing voters – the independents – and his plan to win those votes. However, I do also endorse the notion that this man will say or do whatever it takes to become President. He stands for everything - it just depends on who his audience is. By necessity, this also means he stands for nothing.

White Privilege: Interactions, Impacts, and Influences

by Same Air

This is a continuation of a blog found here. Please be sure you understand the previous posts before you continue to read.

I ended last time promising a discussion of real-world white privilege. What does it look like? How does it impact the lives of Whites? Of non-Whites?

Peggy McIntosh’s Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack will serve as my jumping-off point for these discussions.

What does it look like?

First impressions of a term like ‘white privilege’ vary greatly. White privilege, as I’ve said, is better understood as dominant group advantage. It relies on the fact that a dominant group in a social context has established norms and cultural traditions that non-dominant (or subordinate) groups either are totally unaware of or must attempt to conform to. If we talk about ‘race culture’ in the United States, then it seems apparent that the dominant group is obviously those who appear to be White, or who have a lighter skin tone. White people have unique ways of interacting and, since they comprise the majority, a workable understanding of these ways of interacting serve to benefit them. This is especially true in situations where authority is involved. Whites are more likely to be promoted, hold positions of authority, and conduct interviews.

How does it impact lives?

I alluded to this already, but being White (which means understanding  and belonging to the dominant culture) can present opportunities or at least belay setbacks. To an outsider, the few things I mention here may appear insignificant or small, but to someone whose life is consistently defined by the privilege of others, multiple small incidences compile to confirm ones subordinate status.

To keep this somewhat short, I’m going to bring in a few lines from Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

“Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of my financial reliability.”

  • This represents the anxiety felt by non-Whites. As a White person, I have never been concerned that being White was somehow going to downgrade my appearance of financial liability. The privilege here: when the majority of people in power are White, their perceptions/stereotypes of non-Whites become a form of effective discrimination, whether intentional or not.
“ I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.”
  • It is commonly known (and well-represented in social science research) that, in many arenas, non-Whites perceive a duty to represent their race. I’ve never felt like, through my actions, the reputation of White people was at stake. This same issue may confront students taking exams, non-Whites frequently being asked, “How do Black (or whatever race) people feel about this,” or in almost any interaction. The privilege here: the actions of white individuals are not attributed to all white people.
“If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.”
  • Research also shows non-Whites are more frequently pulled over. Those traffic stops result in non-Whites being searched for drugs more often. This even happens in areas where it has been shown that Whites are more likely to actually have drugs. Once the process has begun, we discover that non-Whites are more likely to be charged and convicted, receive longer sentences, and have less successful paroles.
“When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.”
  • I often hear the argument, “Well why is there a Black History Month but not a White History Month? Why is there Black history but nothing called White history?” Every month is White History Month. We’ve all had White History class, but we just called it ‘History’. A gross majority of history books over represent the contributions and heritages of Whites, or at least ignore contributions of non-Whites to the point of near-total exclusion. This serves to confirm your subordinate status if you’re not White.
This, it seems, is getting too long once again. I have only demonstrated a minute portion of the advantages accrued by having the “correct” skin color in United States race culture.
A personal privilege: I can write about White privilege without being dismissed as a grumbling minority playing the “race card”. Next time you hear this from a person of color, believe them.


 

The Case for Ron “Crazy Uncle” Paul

by Same Air

The following is a brief (very limited) explanation of my reasoning in choosing Dr. Ron Paul as my candidate in the 2012 Presidential race. I consider this one of the most crucial writings I intend to undertake. It is nothing, though, if not read. Therefore, it is as crucial that you share this as it is I write it well. Again, please pass this on.

Foreign Policy

I begin here because I believe it is most important. Dr. Paul’s take on international relationships could be the most progressive, responsible move in this century of U.S. politics. We were never meant to create an American empire and, daily, we aim to accomplish just that. We have military bases and troops in countries today dating back before World War II. For too long, we have meddled in the affairs of other countries. What if China ordered troops to the U.S. to start enforcing their political systems and religious and ideological beliefs on us? (See the link to the left, his “What if?” speech.)

Consistent Rhetoric

Look at Congressman Paul’s record. Not a single vote for a tax increase. In Congress, he is known as “Mr. No.” No politician - especially none running in the 2012 race – can claim to be as consistent or steady in their beliefs as Paul. Nobody. For his thirty years serving our country, he has said the same thing. He does not change his views when convenient or to please anyone. The U.S. needs this steadfastness in the oval office.

Sponsorship

Look into Dr. Paul’s sponsors. He is not backed by international, multi-billion dollar corporations. His primary donor is the individual in the form of small contributions of $250 or less. Further, he outranks all candidates (including Obama) in donations from active military personnel. Remember that this is the same candidate advocating an end to American warfare around the world. For more on campaign sponsorship, see here: OpenSecrets.org 

The Federal Reserve

Dr. Paul has advocated an end to the Federal Reserve for the majority of his political life. His book, “End the Fed,” explains his views in depth. A basic snapshot reveals that the Federal Reserve has the power to inflate and deflate the currency at will – free from Congressional oversight and the hands of the people. This power allows them to essentially alter the value of money in banks, stocks, CD’s, and our wallets. No currency is safe from the Fed. This effects the poor the most, since they have the least access to the ways in which one can hedge against inflation.

Civil Liberties Champion

Your rights as a person and citizen are of utmost concern to Paul. As a libertarian, Dr. Paul realizes that rights do not come in groups but are afforded to individuals. He does not believe in government spying on its citizens, he does not believe in government-sanctioned torture, he does not believe in using security as a means to infringe on liberty.

As I conclude, know that this list is short and limited. It comprises what I see as the best parts of Dr. Paul’s ideologies. In an environment of greed, selfishness, and shortsightedness, Congressman Paul stands out to me as one of the last great statesmen.

Blogging Scholarship
by YourLocalSecurity.com