Government Regulated Privacy

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.

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.

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/

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?

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

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

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

What is right about this article?

On Monday the NY Times reported that agents are going on board buses and trains searching for illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/nyregion/30border.html?_r=1&hpw

I have to agree with the ACLU that this can be seen as racial profiling. Because a person doesn't appear "American" they must prove their citizenship or be detained. I do carry my driver's license most of the time, although that doesn't prove I am a citizen of the U.S. It is not a habit for me to carry my birth certificate. How many citizens are being wrongly accused of being an illegal? Is this right?

Banning gender specific bathrooms in schools

Wait a minute. No more ladies rooms? No more little boys' rooms? Come on now... where is the privacy here?

Check this story out. Just how far are we going to allow these laws to go?

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/08/maine-commission-moves-ban-gender-specific-school-bathrooms-teams/

Coventry school bans army men hat

Just when you think you have seen it all... here is a report from Conventry School in Rhode Island about a 2nd grade student who created a project. You have to read it for yourself.

Let me know what you think. Extreme or within limits?


http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/coventry-school-bans-army-men-hat-

Bicycle Helmet Laws

In New Mexico and California it is illegal for a parent or guardian to knowingly allow a minor (age 18 and under) to ride a bicycle, scooter, skateboard or skates without a well-fitted bicycle helmet.

Many other states have helmet laws but the ages vary. As of August 2010, legislation in Michigan failed to pass this law.

My two cents: Bike helmets didn't even exist when I was a kid. I don't recall anyone ever getting a closed head injury from not using a helmet. I understand the safety issue and I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it makes me wonder if a law such as the ones in New Mexico and California are made to fund the helmet manufacturers.

THE PREAMBLE OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The full document can be found at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop

Opinion Split On School Dress Code

Seat belt law changes in Florida today

Michigan Smoking Ban

Government Regulated Privacy

Welcome to my Blog! I am Tammy Sanchez, coming to you from Eastpointe, Michigan. This blog is a product of my Political Writing course at Chatham University, where I am currently working on my Masters degree in Professional Writing.

The objective of this blog is to generate a lively discussion about government laws that may be infringing upon our rights and privacy as American citizens.
Are these laws getting too close?
Are these laws needed?
Is our society beyond handling ourselves appropriately in public without such laws?

I want to hear your thoughts about the government regulating our privacy.