After reading about Maria and her six year old, Bella, I felt enraged. I am furious that a public school has been able to get away with this for almost an entire school year. I am incensed that young Bella was “punished” for exercising her Constitutional right while whoever was getting the kids ready for lunch was breaking the law. Yes, anything Unconstitutional is illegal and the worst part is the perpetrator of this particular crime was doing such to innocent, impressionable children. Punishing a child not involved in the law breaking hardly seems fair, but this entire debacle is one big mess candy coated with religion.

You can check out the full story on Maria’s blog at http://www.icanonlybe.me. However, in short, the event that occurred at Eastern Wayne Elementary in the Wayne County School District (North Carolina), involved daily recitation of a prayer before the kids were to go to lunch. These children were led in a prayer familiar to most of us raised Christian, “God is Great, God is Good…” What some may dismiss as just a harmless incident holds tragic implications for those who do not practice Christianity or even those that do, who prefer to be the ones to introduce their young children to the God they believe in.

This is a public school. Prayer is not allowed in a taxpayer and government funded institution such as this. Maria, a taxpayer and an atheist, pays for these teachers to be in this school. She does not pay for her child to go to a school to learn about a God that her daughter knows nothing about nor one she (Maria) does not believe in. If a teacher were leading a prayer based on Islam, Judaism or any other religion, you can bet Christian parents would be throwing a fit (with the school scrambling to fix this), and yet, Maria is still waiting for answers to why such law breaking practices are allowed to occur in a school she helps to fund.

Every child has a right to pray if and when they want to, but it should not be required or led by a teacher or other authority figure at any public learning institution. Every child has a right NOT TO pray. I am sick of self-righteous people of any religion trying to stuff it down the throats of everyone around them. I am sick of them believing non-believers must be coerced to convert from their own beliefs. The forefathers believed religion was a private thing between man and whatever God (or lack thereof) he believed in. Thrusting religion into the public sector defies everything the forefathers stood for and disavows all of the freedoms they offered to American citizens.

This apparently, does not apply in North Carolina. If you don’t subscribe to the religious practices of the public school, you get punished. After Maria raised the issue, Bella was put out in the hall, so all the other little kids could be led in prayer. Bella was punished for upholding her constitutional rights; rights she is too young to understand she has. Instead, she just knows she is the one put out in the hall, while those in her classroom continues to break the law.

Technorati Tags: Religion in schools, Religious, Atheist, Eastern Wayne Elementary, Wayne County Schools, Children, God, Religion, Prayer, Prayer in School, Constitution, Illegal, Break Law

We’ve seen this before throughout history with rulings like Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education and enactments of bills into laws like the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These rulings and laws were passed because minority Americans, on a state level, were prohibited from equal access to things like marriage and education. It seems like the states cannot or do not wish to protect minority Americans and, therefore, do not allow such laws to go into effect. Therefore, the Federal Government has to intervene.

Now, the states are passing laws that are discriminatory to Americans. These Americans fall into minority groups. The two most obvious bills I am speaking about were passed into laws in Arizona. The first law allows police officers, who have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone is an illegal immigrant, to detain any Latino or Hispanic person in Arizona and ask for multiple, valid forms of ID to prove citizenship. The second is the law banning the teaching of Ethnic Studies. Both of these laws are not only flat out discriminatory, but they are worded poorly.

For the first law, what does reasonable suspicion mean? A truck driver in Arizona was detained at a weigh-in station. The guy was born in California. He presented his driver’s license and other forms of identification, but was held by officials until his wife left her place of employment to go home and get his birth certificate. Only after they had his birth certificate stating he was born in California did they release him. This guy was singled out because of the color of his skin. Apparently, reasonable suspicion could mean you look Mexican therefore you are suspected of being an illegal immigrant. I’m having flash backs to my knowledge of apartheid. Those who weren’t white always had to carry identification. What a major step back for the state of Arizona, and, in turn, America.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be handled. Our country is made up of immigrants. I am related to immigrants. I am, proudly, third generation Polish-American on my dad’s side. That means my dad’s grandparents were immigrants who came to this country. I am not against immigration because that’s rather hypocritical of me due to my European American heritage (I have not a lick of Native American in me), but I believe people need to become citizens and not enter illegally. However, questioning EVERY person who has tan skin is ridiculous. Many who will be questioned will be legal immigrants or worse yet, American citizens, BORN in America. Why should American citizens be questioned in such a way? What if they happen to see multiple police officers in one day? Should those officers be allowed to question the person again? What a repetitive waste of time this is going to be.

The Ethnic Studies Law raises further questions. What qualifies as Ethnic Studies? If you want to get technical, no studies about Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America should be allowed. The one true American Ethnicity is Native American. So, U.S. history should be changed to Native American History and only allow white folk to enter the picture when the Pilgrims came. Further, any studies that discuss what are seen as Caucasian values should be banned. Arizona has a huge population of Latinos and Native Americans. A concern I have is whether these primarily WHITE lawmakers decide that Native Americans are not like white people and therefore, their history should be banned. They have more right to U.S. history than those of us Europeans do. For now, the bill seems to target Latino ethnic studies programs, but to quote the Conservatives, “it’s a slippery slope.”

I also have a big problem with the state saying how our kids are educated. That’s a major reason we homeschool! Nobody has a right to tell parents what programs they can or cannot put their children in and this is just one more way the government has upped its control over the people. I thought “Republicans” (and I use that term loosely) were against bigger government/more government involvement? I guess they only like it when it benefits them!

The third thing I am concerned about is a bill in South Carolina. The bill calls for a State Day of Prayer because, according to a state Rep, South Carolina is all about prayer. I am not even going to begin to list how UNCONSTITUTIONAL this bill is, but I will say this:

1. There are atheists in every state. Atheists are not religious and therefore, this bill tramples on their first amendment rights. You do not have to agree with atheists to agree that declaring the state as being about prayer, or in the words of Rep. Limehouse himself, “We want to make sure everyone is very sure and comfortable the state of South Carolina is about prayer. We need it in schools, the Legislature and our everyday lives,” violates the rights of those who do not pray.

2. The United States was formed with the intent to separate church and state. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that this was the meaning of their writing of the first amendment. We are a nation founded on religious freedom or freedom from religion. The pilgrims came to escape religious persecution and there were so many denominations of religion by the time the Constitution was written that it became clear that the first amendment needed to be written to allow for freedom of religion. The point is, the government declared no religion was right AND it was not up to said government to get involved in religious matters for THIS VERY REASON!

3. What about those who are religious, but do not pray? What if they find their spirituality through other ways such as meditation? Isn’t it limiting to say that the state is a state of prayer when not everyone in the state prays?

I just hope this bill does not pass.

I hold true Jeffersonian Republican ideals, where government is not involved in the lives of Americans unless a specific group of Americans are being singled out or unless all people are not being given equal rights. That is what the Constitution’s signers wanted when they signed it, protecting Americans in the process.

Now, we are trying to trample these freedoms, protections and our forefathers’ legacies by trying to inject government into more aspects of our lives than any American deserves. What comes next? An Orwellian police state? That kind of control is what I fear from our government.

Technorati Tags: Jefferson, Constitution, Prayer Bill, South Carolina, Immigration Law, Ethnic Studies Law, Arizona, Freedom, Americans, Native Americans

I talk to many parents who have children with disabilities. They are on my Facebook and my Twitter. I hope that through me they realize that their children may have the potential for productive adult lives. As such, I often receive messages, good and bad, about groups, fan pages, and interesting individuals pertaining to the disability community. None have shocked me quite like a post on a mother’s Facebook wall about a group on FB called KEEP DOWN SYNDROME SUFFERERS OUT OF SOCIETY.

The title alone was appalling to me, but I figured it was just a group of ignorant kids fooling around on Facebook. Going to the group was even more insulting. The group description included tips on how those with Down Syndrome should either be locked away or murdered at birth. The group had many people joining to tell the founders and group supporters how sick they were (fruitless, I believe), but there were also many, disgusting posts. Some of them discussed hitting children with Down Syndrome in the face to try to get the “Retard Look” to go away. One was a picture of a mauled, aborted child, with the caption, “This should be all people with Down Syndrome.”

Upon further inspection, I was surprised to learn that not only were teenagers partaking in such vile behavior (parental supervision, anyone?), but 20 and 30-somethings were joining in the hullabaloo, too. Luckily, Facebook has an option that lets members of the site report groups that revolve around hate speech, or disparage a group or individual. Pictures, discussion posts, and wall posts can be reported, too. After making my rounds reporting the group and certain, offensive posts and pictures, I wrote this message on my FB profile:

Mind you, I had been thinking about writing a post like this for a while.

As you can see, I didn’t explain anything about the group or ask anyone else to report the group. I did go on Twitter and urge my friends there to report the group and some of them did. After a friend responded to my FB post, I explained why I was upset, as it pertains to disabilities. This was my reply:

Well, it has been something I’ve been thinking about saying on FB for a while. I think people with disabilities are often looked past, looked over, spoken over, deemed unfit, etc.

What those people doing this don’t realize is ALS could strike them tomorrow, MS could put them in a wheelchair, they could get in an accident at any time. Then, everyone will start doing what they did to others – ignore them, look past them, underestimate them, etc.

Honestly, the final breaking point for me was the creation of a group telling people on FB to exclude people with Down Syndrome from society. The group said to either lock them up or just kill ‘these morons’ at birth. This ignorance, that it even exists, is beyond disappointing. It’s disgusting. I’ve reported the group to FB, and so have many others. Let’s just hope FB doesn’t pull the free speech crap we often hear….

There is freedom of speech and their is hate speech. Hate speech should never be tolerated.

This turned my post about disabilities into a massive debate about free speech, and the right of the group to say what they want. My entire message of, “you reap what you sow,” and “treat others as you wish them to treat you,” was completely lost in this debate. For this blog post, that is neither here nor there. It’s merely something worth noting. What is important, is understanding why I feel there is a difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech.

Yourdictionary.com describes the legal definition of Hate Speech as:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Similarly, Dictionary.com defines Hate Speech as:

–noun
speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

In the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed the right to Free Speech. We are also guaranteed access as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

With these definitions in mind, I feel that the aformentioned group was not created to exercise the right to free speech. If the legal definition of Hate Speech holds true, their speech is not protected by the Bill of Rights because it is not Free Speech. It is disparaging, degrading, and hateful to human beings who deserve the same rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution regardless of ability or lack thereof.

Additionally, their proposed solution for getting rid of the Down Syndrome population is to kill them all so they can no longer pass on their defective genes or go back to something outlawed against racial minorities nearly 60 years ago – separation, isolation, segregation. This goes against human beings’ with Down Syndrome’s right to Life, but also Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no liberty locked away somewhere and there is no way to pursue any potential happiness these people could have if they were segregated from the mainstream population.

This goes back to the original point of my post. These hateful individuals who created this group can’t get Down Syndrome themselves, but they could have a child with it, one day. They could end up being disabled in some other way and see just how hurtful remarks can be when aimed at them. Karma is a bitch. We as humans often realize this too late in our lives.

In the end, the group was removed, though I don’t think I swayed any opinions in the debate. I leave you with these final thoughts I included on FB.

This is more than just mere ignorance. They are posting pictures of dead, mutilated babies and saying this should be all people with Downs. They are saying they’d like to physically attack (punch) people with Downs. They claim they wish to incite violence against a group of individuals with a specific disability and that goes beyond freedom of speech. You may not get it, but allowing such ignorance to congregate and spread on such a forum leads to misinformation and more ignorance….

People will disabilities are still treated like second class citizens. The disability community is, by far, the most discriminated against minority group. It’s also the biggest minority group and the only one any individual in the world can become a part of at any point in their life. The reason for this is because so many people take such a laissez faire attitude when it comes to defending the inalienable rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of people with disabilities. The right to life…not death regardless of disability. So, it’s okay to say they want to take away someone’s human right because they deem the person inferior?

You pointed out the exact problem with why Hitler was not stopped early on. The U.S. had an attitude of, “Hey it isn’t us.” So, we chose to do nothing. We only ended up getting involved because of Pearl Harbor. We had to be personally attacked before we would stand up to Hitler, and even then, it wasn’t because we actually wanted to get involved and save the Jews.

It is the strength in numbers idea. If you have one or two people who feel a certain way about an idea, they usually keep their mouths shut. Once they grow, then the ideas spread and then it inevitably leads to actions. When Hitler was beginning, not everyone believed the Jews needed to be exterminated. As the Nazi party grew, it soon became better to be a part of the party than not, and adopt such heinous beliefs….

The idea is to try to stop the violence before it begins, to educate the public about these types of groups, and to inevitably protect the minority from the majority. If we tolerate such hate groups, allowing them to spout their rhetoric, in a public forum that allows people like me to COMPLAIN and REPORT them specifically for attacking a select group of individuals, then essentially we are ignoring a problem that could grow into something much bigger.

Facebook obviously feels that certain groups of people or specific individuals should NOT be attacked in any of their forums because they have a report button option specifically for this purpose whether their terms of service espouses such notions clearly or not. It’s one thing to say you hate someone or something. It is another to talk about how you punch children with Down’s Syndrome in their faces or how you want to kill them.

I didn’t ask you or anyone else to report this group. In fact, I didn’t even include a link to said group. I think my entire point in my original post was lost. The original message I was trying to get at was that any person in this world can become disabled tomorrow. So sticks and stones. If you treat people with disabilities like crap and then you become disabled yourself, don’t be surprised when you are treated like crap, too.

Essentially, the goal is to realize that people with disabilities are no different than any other human in the most essential of ways. It is foolish to overlook someone for a wheelchair or for having a low IQ. This person may possess gifts and talents you’d only know existed had you taken the time to give said person a chance. The sad truth is, most people don’t give those with disabilities chances and miss out on the greatness these people have to offer.

I was merely pointing out that this group possesses such attitudes that seek to limit those with a specific disability. This type of ignorance spreads and is part of why people with disabilities are still treated so poorly in mainstream society. I have been educating groups of people on disabilities and all that those of us with disabilities can accomplish despite the limitations society has tried to thrust upon us since I was ten years old. Perhaps I am a bit passionate in my quest to finding a sense of equality for those of us with disabilities, but you’d be hard pressed to find any advocate who is not passionate about such a cause they believe in.

I will continue to stand up for what I believe in, even if it isn’t considered the right way to do things or too emotive. I believe this group did attack a specific group. So, I took the action FB allowed me to take against said group, by reporting them.

I leave you all with this thought:

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Technorati Tags: Facebook, Hate Speech, Freedom of Speech, First Amedment, Bill of Rights, Facebook Group, Down Syndrome, Disability

That being said. I decided to compile a list of rules to follow, that dictate traditional marriage from earlier times. If you don’t fit on this list and are married…then shame on you! You are not upholding the values of traditional marriage!!!

1. Sex is for procreation, not recreation. If you are using birth control (why the heck would you need it?), already have all the kids you want, or don’t want kids at all and you are having sex, you aren’t upholding the traditional purpose of marriage…SINNER!

2. Are you married to someone outside your own race? If you are then you are breaking the traditional view on marriage. Interracial marriage wasn’t even allowed or condoned until the mid-20th century.

3. Are you a non-white person? Then you can’t be married. Tradition in America (at least) dictates that you have no rights and that includes the right to marry.

4. Did you marry for love? Men only married women for property or status originally. Companionship was, more often than not, sought with another — in many cases with a close male friend. Men understand men better, after all! If you didn’t marry for the dowry then shame on you!

5. Are you a woman who has any equal say in your relationship? Why are you not submitting to the will of the man you marry? In a traditional marriage you were required to love, honor and “obey.”

6. Are you a man with only one wife? Stemming back to Biblical times, men were allowed to take multiple wives and concubines. How many wives did Abraham have again?! It wasn’t until the U.S. passed a law prohibiting polygamous marriages that this no longer was allowed. I don’t know why? This was a tradition that is still upheld in some parts of the world.

7. Are you divorced? Divorce is one of the worst things you can do to ruin a ‘traditional marriage.’ How dare you break that sacred bond that was shared between you and your spouse? If you marry again that is even worse. You can only have one holy, sanctimonious marriage.

8. As a woman you know it is your duty to allow your husband sex (for procreative purposes) whenever he wants. If he wants to rape you then by the views of traditional marriage, he can do so. It’s his right!

9. Tradition states that a father can essentially ‘sell’ his daughter to the highest bidder. Back in the day, the girl could be as young as 13 or 14. So long as she was in her ‘child-bearing’ years it didn’t matter how old she was. So, dads, when are you going to start ‘selling’ your teenage daughters?

10. If you are a woman and you lost your virginity before marrying then you are an undesirable. You will either have to spend your days working as a courtesan/prostitute or you will live and die as an old maid.

So, hows about dishing me up a helping of that there traditional marriage? I can totally see where those harping about it are coming from!

Technorati Tags: traditional marriage, marriage defense, one man one woman, dowry, slavery, interracial marriage, argument for marriage

I might not be explaining myself as clearly as I should, so let me give you an example. I am not exactly getting the point of civil disobedience in this day and age. The same people who are telling me that the world should be civilized enough to keep serial killers and pedophiles in prison (more on this later), as opposed to the death penalty, feel it is okay to go out and cause civil disobedience. I’m not sure I understand what is so civilized about this.

I can see why civil disobedience was big in the 60s. Everyone was out burning bras, chaining themselves to buildings, and causing a ruckus with the police. They were also on a lot of Acid, Weed, and other drugs. There really was no civility in the time of free love, and perhaps our nation has become more conservative and conventional, but I don’t see how civil disobedience, in this day and age, is going to make anyone’s perception of a specific group positive. In fact, because we live in a more conservative nation, I feel the perception is, more often than not, negative.

Going even further, let me explain what got me thinking about this. ADAPT hosted/is hosting a week of events in Washington D.C. to protest Obama’s slowness in getting the Community Choice Act (CCA) through Congress and on his desk. Granted, Obama did promise those of us in the disabled community this bill, and he has been sluggish in getting things going for the CCA, but he has one heck of a mess to clean up in this nation and a lot of other promises to uphold. It is going to take time and ADAPT is demanding answers now.

I’m not saying I’m happy with Obama. I voted for Obama partly because I felt McCain was just more Bush and partly because he was the only one who claimed he supported the political actions I support. Like everyone else, I’m waiting with baited breath to see if he can get things together. Yes, he’s been in office just over 100 days, but that’s a small amount of time to clean up 8 years of terrible economic practices. I think we all need to use some patience and give him time to figure out what to do, how to do it, and how to implement it. If by the end of four years he hasn’t kept his promises then we’ll know what kind of president, what kind of man, he really is.

I digress. This has only a little to do with perceptions. I am just trying to give my thoughts on the ADAPT actions, so you can see where I am coming from. I’ve been told ADAPT has a long history of civil disobedience action. They used it to pass the ADA (perhaps the most archaic Act in the history of Congress) and to help get public transportation for all (I don’t think enough has been done for this — but that’s just from someone who depends on accessible, public transportation that is unreliable). Perhaps in 1990, civil disobedience worked, but that is almost 20 years ago. Perceptions change.

I have National ADAPT on my Twitter. Throughout the last few days, my twitter stream has been filled with updates on the action. People in wheelchairs (close to 500 — in total) chained themselves to the White House fence. They blocked the entrance to the White House so visitors either had to cancel appointments or go to another entrance on the opposite side of the White House. They crawled up the steps of the Capitol. They were getting arrested, proudly, left and right. For what? Media attention.

Yes, this did get more media attention than the Jerry Lewis protest in California a few months back, but the perceptions of average Americans to this civil disobedience is not positive. On the whole, its negative. Just go look at the comments in newspapers carrying the story or on various Twitter streams of those finding amusement in the action. People don’t get why the disabled populace is breaking the law and getting arrested. In the end, the true reason behind it all, passing the Community Choice Act (a bill necessary and essential to keeping those of us in wheelchairs who require care in our homes and out of nursing homes) is lost in the muddle.

Furthermore, we need the support of the majority. With majority support the CCA has a better chance of being passed. The perceptions of the majority matter because they help this essential bill come to fruition. The majority needs to help us email Congress, Obama, and demand the bill pass. If the majority sees us in a negative light, they won’t care if Obama is held accountable for his promise or not, and that, to me is a problem.

People think we’re whiners who just want our way. They believe that we expect too much of Obama. They believe the civil disobedience is pointless. We’re crazy. We’re greedy. We’re selfish for not following proper protocols (the protesters didn’t even file a petition to picket/protest in front of the White House — something they could have done). In fact, the only people who find this amusing or think its great are those who don’t like Obama. Suddenly, Obama hates people with disabilities (according to them). Most of these people are from the Conservative Right.

My thoughts on this are that there are more conventional ways to get the issue in the news. We have a three-section government for a reason. When something doesn’t work out with the Executive Branch, it’s good to appeal to the Legislative Branch. If that doesn’t work we always have the Judicial Branch to fall back upon. How many lawsuits have been filed in the past to bring an issue to the forefront? I wonder why this wasn’t considered before going to the Capitol and crawling up a bunch of steps?

I find it hard to be proud of this action. Yes, I agree something does need to be done, but I don’t agree with the methods employed in order to get action. As far as I know, nothing has been accomplished other than to get the story into the mainstream media, and raise the blood pressures of the majority who don’t agree with 1960s-esque, radical picketing tactics. To me, the entire thing is pointless. Negative attention is worse than no attention, especially when it comes to the support of a bill, such as the CCA.

So, do perceptions matter? Do you think that the disability rights movement should care about what the majority thinks in order to garner their support for the cause? I believe that with the disabled being one of the most discriminated groups in the nation, we do need the majority’s support. Without their understanding of our situation, we won’t get that and civil disobedience is no way to go about changing perceptions, for the better.

Technorati Tags: perceptions, disability, civil disobedience, Community Choice Act, CCA, picket, Congress, Obama, discrimination

Yesterday, I watched the inauguration of President Obama on CNN. I don’t often watch other channels, because a lot of them try to go into the negative aspects of a day such as this. I had friends who turned off their televisions when other stations started talking about everything Bush did wrong. I’d say CNN did a nice job of keeping away from the negativity, for once, and focusing on Obama. This was his day, after all.

Online, some friends of mine in the disability community informed me about what was happening on MSNBC during the inauguration. Chris Matthews, the Hardball guy, was covering the inaugural events, and he made some harsh comments about Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, the way in which he said them were critical of every person in a wheelchair.

You probably already know Dick was in a wheelchair after he strained his back while lifting boxes as he was moving. Friends of mine, like Kara Sheridan have posted their thoughts on this, especially about how he could have rented a better wheelchair, so he could either push himself or motor into the inauguration. I, personally, felt Cheney was ashamed of the wheelchair, and getting something more comfortable, might have been too much for a proud, evilite like him, to handle.

Regardless, the issue was sensitive for him, and the press couldn’t keep from commenting about it. CNN was the most polite. They sort of brushed over the fact he was in a wheelchair, other than to explain why he was in one. That was fine. Tom Brokaw angered a few with his comparison of Cheney to Dr. Strangelove. I’m not so sensitive that this bothered me. In fact, I believe Brokaw said what he meant in a stupid way. I believe he was reflecting on the irony of the fact that, like Dr. Strangelove, another evil man has ended up in a wheelchair. He wasn’t offending the wheelchair user, but rather dissing Cheney. I think he phrased it stupidly, but I don’t think there was malice in what he said.

What I can’t forgive is Mr. Hardball’s comments. Chris Matthews said something downright stupid and inaccurate. By all intents and purposes, he tried to say (not verbatim) that Cheney’s evil ways meant he deserved to be in the wheelchair he was in. It’s a metaphor for the low esteem in which he is held by the world. Sure, I can agree Dick is a DICK. I can’t stand him, but making cracks because he’s in a wheelchair? How does he think the people in wheelchairs, who are there long term, felt?

I bet there were some scratching their heads asking, “If he thinks Dick Cheney deserved to be in a chair for his evil deeds, then what did I do to deserve to be in one?”

I can look past Dr. Strangelove, but not these comments. Both comments were stupid, but Brokaw was dissing Cheney, while Matthews was dissing the wheelchair, and why Cheney was in the wheelchair.

What is wrong with him, seriously? What makes people think they can say such crude things, and get away with it? I’m not sure why he said it, but, if you haven’t viewed the video above, you can check out his comments by visiting:

YouTube

So, what do you think about Chris Matthews’ comments? He offended a whole group of wheelchair users, even those of us not easily offended.

If you agree that Chris Matthews was wrong, I’m asking you to email MSNBC and complain about his remarks.

You can email MSNBC here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

Perhaps we can get Chris Matthews to see how insensitive his comments were, and how other networks like CNN took the high road, choosing to ignore the wheelchair in order to keep things positive for President Obama.

Technorati Tags: Chris Matthews, Hardball, MSNBC, Tom Brokaw, CNN, Inauguration, President Obama, Dick Cheney, wheelchair, discrimination

In Arkansas, all unmarried couples (especially GLBT couples) were henceforth banned from adopting children or becoming foster parents. With over 3% of the millions of foster children in the United States living in same sex households, you have to imagine some kids just lost what they believed might become their forever homes.

In the saddest, and most depressing loss of the night, California passed Proposition 8. This is the first time in history, a group of people have had a right given to them by the courts only to have it taken away. If anything is truly unconstitutional, it’s this, because this is the first time people have truly lost a right they once retained. First, we all need to agree that marriage truly is a right. I’ll get into why I believe it is a right a little later in this post.

Many people think that the courts have no right determining what is unconstitutional and what isn’t, but that is exactly why the courts are there. The judicial branch of the government was established because certain minority groups would be denied certain rights by the majority. The minority had to have some protection. In years past, we’ve seen many minority groups be served up similar “unconstitutional” bans on freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only protection these groups had was through the judicial system who overturned such unconstitutional laws and made it so these groups were given the same rights.

The best example of this has to be the issue of bi-racial marriage. Virginia constitutionally banned bi-racial marriage in 1661. It was a punishable offense back then. Oddly enough, those who passed this law into effect believed it was “God’s Will” and that they were denying bi-racial couples the right to marry because they believed it was against what God wanted. This sounds erriely familiar doesn’t it? Oh yes! This is the same argument now being used to deny GLBT individuals the right to marry.

In 1967, it was the Supreme Court who deemed this law to be unconstitutional. Had the people been given the right to vote on the issue, it most likely would not have passed. Thanks to Loving vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the Supreme Court was able to decriminalize the right to marry who you wanted regardless of race. It was through the courts that the minority was protected, not through states voting on the issue.

This is because the majority vastly outweighed the majority and would most likely not have had the minority’s interests at heart. So, why is the majority able to squelch the rights of the GLBT minority group? It’s because the people seem to want more say in government and more say in what they believe is right…not what truly is right.

You should check out my post on answering all of the arguments against gay marriage. It explains how all of the arguments against it have no validity or reasoning behind them. That being said, I should now explain why I believe marriage is a right and not a religious institution. Marriage has become a religious institution though it doesn’t have to be. In fact, by law, it has nothing to do with religion.

Marriage is a right, civil liberty or whatever else you want to call it because those who marry get government benefits. Marriage is, in its purest form, a legal binding of two individuals. Religion has nothing to do with legal matters or the courts. In fact, marriage is one of the most heavily rewarded, legally binding contracts. There are over 1400 benefits (both state and federal) afforded to married couples. When a state, nation, or community denies a GLBT couple the right to marry, the couple is being denied 1400 benefits. This isn’t just one or two. No, it’s nearly 2000 benefits. That is the disgusting reality and part of what makes these bans unconstitutional.

The 9th amendment also makes this unconstitutional. Basically, this amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, acknowledges that there are rights not specifically in the constitution (such as the right to marry) and it guarantees protection to these rights, especially against any other amendments that are placed in said constitution. Essentially, by putting a constitutional amendment in the constitution, which bans GLBT individuals from marrying, the ninth amendment is being squelched. It’s not being upheld.

In conclusion, we have a long way to go until this country will be just and fair to GLBT individuals. I was proud to make history by helping to elect Barack Obama as my next president, but that excitement couldn’t help but be marred by the several steps taken back that limit the rights of GLBT individuals thanks to votes by people who don’t even understand what being GLBT is.

Technorati Tags: GLBT rights, gay rights, gay marriage, unconstitutional, steps back, constitutional amendment, protections, deny, courts

The group of people at the live blog event were amazing folks. I’m truly glad I had the chance to meet them. We celebrated Obama’s victory, listened to McCain speak, and heard Obama’s message of hope and change, together. I had never thought I could feel so speechless concerning a presidential victory, but the election of Obama was surreal. I was not initially for Obama (Clinton supporter here), but I came to respect him and feel like I’ve been a part of something big. I’ve been a part of a historic event that my children’s children can only imagine as they read about this momentous victory in the history books.

This is what I shared with this group, and afterward, I was posed with a question by Keith. It was more of a challenge, and I’m taking it head on.

Keith asked some of us who were at the live blogging event to, ‘write on why we should look at life as one, rather than life as fragments scattered across the universe.‘

That’s what Obama spoke of when he mentioned people of all colors, all abilities, differing sexual orientations and his speech truly was all inclusive. As a transgendered man in a wheelchair, I’ve never felt so included in a political speech. I’ve never felt like a politician was truly talking to me, truly reaching out to me to ask for my assistance in building a new and better world.

So, to Keith and everyone out there, I would like to say that unity is the key to true equality and freedom. Unity is the key to building a better world. In our lives, we have so many labels. They label us by gender and biological sex. They label us by color. They label us by who we fall in love with, our religion, our political affiliation, our economic status, our ethnicity, our age, our experience, and everything else you can think of. We all have to fit in “neat little classification boxes” that describe who we are and what our assumed purpose is in life.

Well I’m here to tell you, my boxes may describe me, but they don’t define me. You can say, I’m a man with Spinal Muscular Atrophy in a wheelchair, but that chair doesn’t make me who I am. I’m white, but my skin color doesn’t dictate how I act. I’m transgendered, but that doesn’t determine who I talk to or incorporate with on a daily basis. All of these things may make me different on the outside, but inside, my heart beats, my lungs breathe, my blood flows, just like all of you.

Now is the time to remove ourselves from our collective boxes. Now is the time to stand up and label ourselves in only one way…American. We are all Americans. We are all hoping for some change and we have to be the ones to look past those blurring lines, created by those boxes to build a better nation. Let us join hands together in this endeavor…black and white, poor and rich, Christian, Jewish, Polytheist, Muslim, Atheist or otherwise, gay or straight, man, woman, or transgendered, from any ethnic background and with any ability or lack thereof.

We have the opportunity to join our President Elect in making a better world. Everyone deserves equal treatment. Everyone deserves a fair shake. By oppressing groups, we’re distracting ourselves from upward progress as a nation. We need to look past it all to the real problems and the real issues.

I don’t know about you but I think we should focus on getting our troops out of the war in Iraq as opposed to worrying about a man loving and wishing to marry another man. We need to worry about sending our children to better schools as opposed to worrying about upholding income limits in order to keep Healthcare for those in wheelchairs. We need to worry about getting the economy in a stable, easier to live in state, as opposed to worrying about taking foster children away from GLBT parents who love them. We need to make sure children and those in need are insured medically, as opposed to caring if a man has taken the steps to become a woman legally.

Our priorities need to be in the right place. We need to be as one. Otherwise, we could lose our country and our very livelihood. People living in their own little universe only care about what happens to them and not to anyone else. Their beliefs trump the lives of others and they don’t care who they hurt or how. This has got to end. Otherwise, we will never restore the United States back to the prestige and glory it deserves as one of the best nations in the world.

Change is on the horizon and only we can see it through…together…as one.

Technorati Tags: unity, Barack Obama, together, change, belief, true issues, politics, president elect, election, Yes but No but Yes, challenge

I plan to podcast on both politics and religion. I had considered podcasting on sports, but I feel that I’m more passionate about the topics of politics and religion in a broader sense. Besides…I might make a few people mad if all I do is podcast about how much I love the U of M Wolverines!

When it comes to politics, I plan to express my thoughts as an educated individual with a plethora of political science knowledge under my belt. I minored in Political Science my first go around at college, prior to having to drop out my senior year, due to a tibial fracture. I have the knowledge and debates led by Profs. December Green, Liam Anderson, and Laura Luehrmann to thank for all of my political knowledge.

Prof. Green taught me a lot about international politics, especially those in relation to human rights throughout Africa and the world. I highly recommend taking a class with her if you ever go to school in Dayton. Prof. Anderson also taught about International Politics and he taught me about the horrors of genocide and what role politics play in policing the world. Then there is Professor Luehrmann, who was an incredibly hard, but fair teacher. Her Modern Political Ideologies class taught me about socialism, Marxist thought, fascism and many other concepts I often discuss with others.

Through my political podcasts I’d like to explain the different ideological standpoints. There has been a lot of confusion about what socialism, fascism, and communism are, especially with the upcoming election knocking on our doors. I’d also like to share my thoughts on politics in the United States and the beliefs of our Forefathers when they were molding this great nation.

When it comes to religion, I don’t plan to preach. I merely plan to explain about my religious beliefs, so that people can understand what I believe and why. I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist. For the first time in my life, I’ve felt passionate about my religion. I want people to know about why I’m so passionate. My religion does not believe in converting others towards my way of thinking. It is more philosophical and works towards explaining more about how the world works.

I would like people to know that Hellenic Reconstructionism is a real, living religion and let my readers/listeners understand why people like me believe in it. I believe everyone is entitled to follow their own religious path and believe in their own religious beliefs. That’s what’s so wonderful about the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of Religion should truly and irrevocably be upheld.

So, I invite you to tune in soon and listen. I don’t care if I have a higher pitched voice. That’s just who I am. I hope you enjoy my podcasts and learning about all of the things I’m anxious to share.

Technorati Tags: Dominick Evans, Hellenic Reconstructionism, Hellenic Reconstructionist, polytheism, politics, ideologies, podcast

So, I said, “Yeah, this is Dominick.”

Her reply was, “Ok, Dominique not Dominick.”

And I said, “No, this is Dominick.”

She paused for a moment and was like, “Well, uhm. Okay.”

Then she asked me about voting and I told her I already had voted absentee. So, she asked me if she could ask who I voted for, and I said Barack Obama. She seemed pleased.

Apparently, it doesn’t matter if you’re Dominick and you almost sound more like Dominique if you choose the right political candidate.

Technorati Tags: Dominick, Dominique, politics, voice, Barack Obama, phone call, voted