Seven weeks have passed since I received the assignment of writing a blog. After the terror subsided, and the aprehension wained, I persevered into this world of nationwide opinions, reports and news.
This subject of the government's involvement into our private lives has always been an area of unease for me. I suppose it comes down to the fact that I just don't like to be told what to do. Once the authorities put down their rules stating that not only can you not do that, but you will be fined, jailed or worse if you do.
Taking offense to a strong defense provides reaction in most of us, and I especially get cranky and respond in a "we'll see about that attitude." I know it's juvenile but I can have tantrums too. As my research into these news stories continued, I was more and more taken back on some of the issues that were surfacing.
From bathrooms in schools to putting tracking chips on preschoolers and the forever absurd in my mind, rainbow frosting debacle. I couldn't believe some of the things that were occurring in our free nation. Are we too free? Does all of this come down to someone's need for power? Or are we really at risk of surrendering our rights? I shudder at the thought of what my kids will face in the hands of the government when they are my age.
I am concerned of what we as a society has become through our movement to political correctness, our interpretation of equal rights including animals, inanimate objects and humans being clumped into one. Have we as a society gotten too intelligent? Have we surpassed the capabilities of the human component in such a way that we need these regulations to protect ourselves from ourselves?
I don't think I am finished with pondering these questions or searching for more examples. I feel the need to somehow get a grasp on what is occurring even if that grasp is a tattered string.
So as we continue on with our day to day tasks in our day to day roles as someone or something attempts to keep a reign on our complicated and sophisticated lives; it is my hope that someone may someday stumble upon my words and have similar thougths and questions.
Maybe at that point we can engage in some conversation about how we are managing to survive within the constraints of government regulated privacy.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Report says Michigan among states that jail those who can't pay debts | detnews.com | The Detroit News
Report says Michigan among states that jail those who can't pay debts detnews.com The Detroit News
Money is tight and you are unable to make payments on a debe. The bill collectors begin to call, you dodge them because they humiliate you and are nasty. After all, if you had the money you would pay the bill.
Next thing you know they expect you in court which you don't attend and then, unknown to you, you are found contempt of court and then court fees are added to the existing debt. The vicious cycle continues when the judge orders you to jail time for the unpaid fees and then fines you for being in jail.
Is this legal? According to the law, this is unconstitutional but it is happening. In the report from the The Detroit News, a women was sentenced to jail for not paying a traffic fine. On top of the initial fine is added court and jail fine which increases her amount due. If she didn't have the money to pay the initial fine, how will she pay these addition ones?
The ACLU are all over this, defending citizens who are falling victim to these modern day debtors prisons. It is happening more frequently.
In my opinion, if someone does not have the money to pay before they are put in jail, how the heck are they going to be able to pay the additional fines after?
Why turn a economically depressed individual into a economically depressed individual with a jail record which will make it even more difficult for this person to earn money to survive? What are the answers to these situations?
If this is being allowed even though unconstitutional, what will be next? I really don't want to find out.
Money is tight and you are unable to make payments on a debe. The bill collectors begin to call, you dodge them because they humiliate you and are nasty. After all, if you had the money you would pay the bill.
Next thing you know they expect you in court which you don't attend and then, unknown to you, you are found contempt of court and then court fees are added to the existing debt. The vicious cycle continues when the judge orders you to jail time for the unpaid fees and then fines you for being in jail.
Is this legal? According to the law, this is unconstitutional but it is happening. In the report from the The Detroit News, a women was sentenced to jail for not paying a traffic fine. On top of the initial fine is added court and jail fine which increases her amount due. If she didn't have the money to pay the initial fine, how will she pay these addition ones?
The ACLU are all over this, defending citizens who are falling victim to these modern day debtors prisons. It is happening more frequently.
In my opinion, if someone does not have the money to pay before they are put in jail, how the heck are they going to be able to pay the additional fines after?
Why turn a economically depressed individual into a economically depressed individual with a jail record which will make it even more difficult for this person to earn money to survive? What are the answers to these situations?
If this is being allowed even though unconstitutional, what will be next? I really don't want to find out.
Friday, October 1, 2010
No Cupcakes at the Bakery
I wonder if the conversation went something like this...
"Hi, how are you today?"
"I am fine, thank you."
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, I would like to place an order for cupcakes with rainbow frosting."
"Rainbow frosting?"
"Yes, is that a problem?"
"Who are you serving these cupcakes to?"
"We will be serving them to celebrate with our supporters."
"That's nice, what are you celebrating?"
"The National Coming Out day."
"Coming out? out of?... oh! coming out... uh... well... we don't make cupcakes here."
"Excuse me? This is a bakery, cupcakes and bakeries go hand in hand."
"Uh, well, not this bakery, we don't make cupcakes and besides, we don't have rainbow frosting."
No matter how the conversation went, the bottom line was that the bakery refused the student group from ordering cupcakes with rainbow frosting. Did the customer say something wrong? Were these students from University-Purdue University Indianapolis denied of a basic right to order a cupcake? It's not like they came in to buy drugs or weapons. They wanted cupcakes for goodness sake!
Just when you think it can't get any more absurd--enter the city officials who have to determine:
Does the bakery really not make cupcakes? Or
Did the bakery owner refuse to make the cupcakes because they will not allow their goods to be eaten by gay and lesbian individuals?
Mr. bakery owner said it was because they own a family business. What if the children were to see their mommy and daddy selling rainbow cupcakes? Oh my goodness, would it traumatize them? Would these children have deep seeded cupcake and rainbow trauma which would ruin them forever? Give me a break!
Read the article and let me know what you think?
Was the bakery out of line or were the students asking for an inappropriate request?
My reaction? To borrow a phrase from Bill Murray in the movie, Meatballs...
"IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!"
"IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/29/city-officials-launch-inquiry-cupcake-denial-gay-student-group/
"Hi, how are you today?"
"I am fine, thank you."
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, I would like to place an order for cupcakes with rainbow frosting."
"Rainbow frosting?"
"Yes, is that a problem?"
"Who are you serving these cupcakes to?"
"We will be serving them to celebrate with our supporters."
"That's nice, what are you celebrating?"
"The National Coming Out day."
"Coming out? out of?... oh! coming out... uh... well... we don't make cupcakes here."
"Excuse me? This is a bakery, cupcakes and bakeries go hand in hand."
"Uh, well, not this bakery, we don't make cupcakes and besides, we don't have rainbow frosting."
No matter how the conversation went, the bottom line was that the bakery refused the student group from ordering cupcakes with rainbow frosting. Did the customer say something wrong? Were these students from University-Purdue University Indianapolis denied of a basic right to order a cupcake? It's not like they came in to buy drugs or weapons. They wanted cupcakes for goodness sake!
Just when you think it can't get any more absurd--enter the city officials who have to determine:
Does the bakery really not make cupcakes? Or
Did the bakery owner refuse to make the cupcakes because they will not allow their goods to be eaten by gay and lesbian individuals?
Mr. bakery owner said it was because they own a family business. What if the children were to see their mommy and daddy selling rainbow cupcakes? Oh my goodness, would it traumatize them? Would these children have deep seeded cupcake and rainbow trauma which would ruin them forever? Give me a break!
Read the article and let me know what you think?
Was the bakery out of line or were the students asking for an inappropriate request?
My reaction? To borrow a phrase from Bill Murray in the movie, Meatballs...
"IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!"
"IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/29/city-officials-launch-inquiry-cupcake-denial-gay-student-group/
Saturday, September 25, 2010
How the government regulates my privacy
Through the research I have conducted for this blog, I have learned of many ways in which the government, or an institution of authority, has a say in my privacy as a citizen of the United States. The common laws/rules such as smoking bans, seat belt laws, and dress codes are pretty much accepted these days.
What about those laws/ rules that we may not be so accusted too? What about the Head Start program providing tracking mechanisms for children. What about the school that is allowed to degenderize their bathrooms so to not single anyone out?
This brings up the issue of "who owns us?"
In a lecture from Michael Sandel from Harvard University, http://www.justiceharvard.org/
he brings this concept up in his talk on liberalism. Mr. Sandel questions his students if we have lost "self-possession". By inflicting laws and rules, Sandel argues if we have lost our ability to decide for ourselves what we do for ourselves.
So who owns me?
The government requires me to pay taxes and have Social Security drawn from my paycheck. I must wear my seatbelt when in a vehicle. I cannot talk on my cell phone while driving through cetain comunities. If I did smoke, I can only do it in certain areas.
Can I be trusted to own myself?
Maybe I am not trustworthy enough to make my own decisions. Maybe my rights need to be controlled and monitored because my decision will go against the "norm". Maybe the rules are necessary?
What if I owned myself? Would no one have a say as to what I did? Would I be able to go and do whatever it was that I wanted or needed with no interference? Will self-possession ever be possible?
What about those laws/ rules that we may not be so accusted too? What about the Head Start program providing tracking mechanisms for children. What about the school that is allowed to degenderize their bathrooms so to not single anyone out?
This brings up the issue of "who owns us?"
In a lecture from Michael Sandel from Harvard University, http://www.justiceharvard.org/
he brings this concept up in his talk on liberalism. Mr. Sandel questions his students if we have lost "self-possession". By inflicting laws and rules, Sandel argues if we have lost our ability to decide for ourselves what we do for ourselves.
So who owns me?
The government requires me to pay taxes and have Social Security drawn from my paycheck. I must wear my seatbelt when in a vehicle. I cannot talk on my cell phone while driving through cetain comunities. If I did smoke, I can only do it in certain areas.
Can I be trusted to own myself?
Maybe I am not trustworthy enough to make my own decisions. Maybe my rights need to be controlled and monitored because my decision will go against the "norm". Maybe the rules are necessary?
What if I owned myself? Would no one have a say as to what I did? Would I be able to go and do whatever it was that I wanted or needed with no interference? Will self-possession ever be possible?
A ban on smoking outside
I don't smoke, but if I did this one would ruffle my feathers. The city of New York is trying to ban cigerette smoking from outside businesses and on beaches. They claim that 2nd hand cigerette smoke is worse for us than car exhaust.
For sure I don't want to sit and inhale cigerettes or exhaust, but does that mean we will be banned from driving cars near people?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130111848&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
For sure I don't want to sit and inhale cigerettes or exhaust, but does that mean we will be banned from driving cars near people?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130111848&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrow...
This link will take you to a website that explains the bill that the Senate will soon be looking at passing. The attempt, according to the bill, is to make food safe to eat alleviating illness and recalls.
S 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Nears Vote
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Tracking the vulnerable?
Ok, so 3 and 4 year olds are quick and can sometimes slip from our grasp, I understand that. But is it necessary to put a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip on them to track their every move? This is what has occurred in Head Start children in Richmond, California.
Head Start is a federal funded preschool program servicing low income children and families. A family qualifies when their annual gross income is below the federal income guidelines. Having worked for a Head Start program for 13 years I know that we are talking about a vulnerable population.
To the majority of families who receive services through Head Start, the program becomes a place of security, trust and help. The Head Start parent sees the program's resources as opportunities for their children's educational needs. Parents receive valuable resources for themselves and are exposed to communities of networks to access when the need arises.
So what is the government trying to achieve by using these RFID chips in Head Start children? How are they explaining this to the parents?
This is what the ACLU is trying to find out. To tell you the truth, I am almost afraid of the answers.
Read the attached news release and let me know your thoughts on this issue.
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/privacy_and_safety_questions_loom_over_federal_program_to_track_preschoolers.shtml
Head Start is a federal funded preschool program servicing low income children and families. A family qualifies when their annual gross income is below the federal income guidelines. Having worked for a Head Start program for 13 years I know that we are talking about a vulnerable population.
To the majority of families who receive services through Head Start, the program becomes a place of security, trust and help. The Head Start parent sees the program's resources as opportunities for their children's educational needs. Parents receive valuable resources for themselves and are exposed to communities of networks to access when the need arises.
So what is the government trying to achieve by using these RFID chips in Head Start children? How are they explaining this to the parents?
This is what the ACLU is trying to find out. To tell you the truth, I am almost afraid of the answers.
Read the attached news release and let me know your thoughts on this issue.
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/privacy_and_safety_questions_loom_over_federal_program_to_track_preschoolers.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)