So let’s get this straight.  Today’s Republican Party doesn’t believe in abortion.  So – they are going to force a woman who may or may not want a child, who possibly conceived that child through no fault of her own (rape, incest, etc.), to have that child and bring it into this world.  OK.

So said mother is forced to carry child to term.  During the pregnancy, at the very least the Republican Party would want insurance companies to provide maternity care for said mother so she has all of her needs met while carrying the child, right?  NO.  The Republican Party actually seeks to make sure that maternity coverage isn’t a requirement of health care plans, and believes that anybody who wants maternity coverage should have to pay for it?  So, thus far – mother with illegitimate child (possibly conceived through rape) forced to carry child through term, but insurance is allowed not to cover her maternity care.  OK.

So said child is born – then it’s pretty obvious that the Republican Party will therefore help said mother with the needs for that child – help feed it, provide health insurance for it, and overall help make sure that it becomes a contributing member of society.  NO.  Republicans seek to cut money from SNAP and WIC which help to feed children in this country whose parents struggle to make end’s meat.  But at least employers pay a fair wage to women equal to that of men, so women can at least attempt to provide for this child that they didn’t want in the first place.  NO.  The republicans don’t support that either.  Many of them voted against the Lilly Ledbedder fair pay act.  Oh…well, at least the Republicans want to provide money for programs like Head Start to help parents look after their kids while they are working.  NO.  Republicans actually instigated a 2 week government shutdown where programs like head start were put in jeopardy because of some ideological difference with existing law.  OK.

So again – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child.  

Let’s move forward.  I mean, I know it sounds bad so far, but at the very minimum at least the Republicans are good about education.  They put a good amount of resources and money into our education system, making sure our teachers are paid well to educate that child that the mother originally didn’t want but the Republicans forced her to have, right?  NO.  The Republicans actually cut money to education both federally, statewide, and locally in many states they control.  And Republicans are against unions – which teachers belong to, and they use to fight for better wages so they can teach our children and make them productive members of society.  OK

So again – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.

Well, the kid starts to grow up and he becomes and adult and heads off to college.  At the very least, the Republicans are for keeping student loan rates low right?  NO.  They actually stalled on a bill over the summer which meant student loan interest rates went up because they didn’t pass the bill.  Furthermore, the Republicans actually want to turn control of the student loan program back over to private industry because under President Obama it was converted to a government-run program, saving the program billions of dollars which were then converted to federal grants that students don’t have to pay back and Republicans were against that.  OK.

So again – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.  And they support higher student loan interest rates, and turning control of our federal student loan system back over to private banks, meaning less government grants for students and more money out of pocket when going to college.  Got it.

So, said child becomes a contributing member of society and goes to look for a job and even with his college education, he can only find a job that pays minimum wage.  Surely, the Republicans want to pay a living wage to the child so he can have a happy life, and find somebody he loves, settle down, buy a house, and do all the thing that citizens do in this country right?  NO.  The Republicans don’t support raising the minimum wage, and in fact support getting rid of the current minimum wage altogether.  They believe the market will take care of itself.  They don’t believe in labor laws either, and believe that big businesses can regulate themselves without government oversight.  OK.

So again – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.  And they support higher student loan interest rates, and turning control of our federal student loan system back over to private banks, meaning less government grants for students and more money out of pocket when going to college.  Furthermore, they support abolishing the minimum wage, removing oversights of big business and allowing big business to regulate itself, meaning workers would have no rights in the workplace.  Okay, got it.

As said child grows into his body, he figures out that he in fact has attractions towards other men.  Unfortunately, his employer finds out and fires him because he is gay.  Obviously there are laws protecting said child from this bigotry nationwide right?  NO.  The Republicans have looked to stop such federal law from protecting the rights of the LGBT community for decades, including a vote that took place just today, November 5, 2013, where the Republicans filibustered against the ENDA bill which would end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

So let’s keep the chain going – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.  And they support higher student loan interest rates, and turning control of our federal student loan system back over to private banks, meaning less government grants for students and more money out of pocket when going to college.  Furthermore, they support abolishing the minimum wage, removing oversights of big business and allowing big business to regulate itself, meaning workers would have no rights in the workplace.  Republican also refuse to support federal law that would eliminate an employer from firing somebody simply because of who they loved.  Okay got it.

Because said child loses his job, he is forced to go on unemployment – a plan that he paid into, and is part of our social safety nets in this country.  It’s good to know that such a safety net exists in case something like this happens, right?  NO.  If the republicans had their way, unemployment insurance would be eliminated, or at the very least, capped, because if we are giving somebody money from the government for not working, they obviously won’t look for jobs on their own, according to Republican philosophy.

So continuing our pattern – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.  And they support higher student loan interest rates, and turning control of our federal student loan system back over to private banks, meaning less government grants for students and more money out of pocket when going to college.  Furthermore, they support abolishing the minimum wage, removing oversights of big business and allowing big business to regulate itself, meaning workers would have no rights in the workplace.  Republican also refuse to support federal law that would eliminate an employer from firing somebody simply because of who they loved.  And when a person loses their job, the Republicans don’t support an unemployment insurance program as a safety net.  Okay, got it.

As said child gets older, he is looking at retirement.  Medicare and social security, which have been safety nets in our country for generations are something he’s looked at to supplement his 401K for decades now.  Except, right before retirement a huge bubble bursts which sends the stock market, and all 401K’s plummeting to no value.  Said child now virtually has no money to live off into his retirement days.  He’s upside down in his mortgage, and doesn’t know what he’s going to do.  At least the republicans support oversight of big banks and businesses that crashed the economy to ensure that those who played fast and loose with other people’s money are brought to justice.  NO.  Republicans blocked the nomination of the director of the Consumer Protection Bureau because on principle, they didn’t agree that such an agency should exist.  They believed that those who were responsible for the 2008 recession should be left alone, that “too big to fail” isn’t too big at all.  In addition, Republicans believe that social security and Medicare are two programs that can be “cut” to help make sure the budget is balanced.

Let’s follow it through – the republicans support forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t want in the first place, without care from an insurance provider, or equal pay from a job, or support from the government to help feed or care for the child, and they support cutting money to education, and forcing teachers out of unions so they can fight for better wages and benefits to teach our children to become contributing members of society.  And they support higher student loan interest rates, and turning control of our federal student loan system back over to private banks, meaning less government grants for students and more money out of pocket when going to college.  Furthermore, they support abolishing the minimum wage, removing oversights of big business and allowing big business to regulate itself, meaning workers would have no rights in the workplace.  Republicans also refuse to support federal law that would eliminate an employer from firing somebody simply because of who they loved.  And when a person loses their job, the Republicans don’t support an unemployment insurance program as a safety net.  Into retirement, Republicans don’t support those big businesses and institutions who essentially gamble away people’s retirement, and believe that social security and Medicare are two programs that can be touched in order to “cut the deficit.” Okay got it.

As said child slowly fades away, he wishes to leave all of his worldly possessions to his family – his husband and his children.  Surely the Republicans can’t disagree with this.  It doesn’t affect them at all.  Actually, yes they do, in states where marriage is not legal between the same sexes, many times possessions that are left from spouses of the same sex are not subject to the same tax rules, regulations, stipulations, etc.  Meaning, that same sex couples are discriminated against because of who they love.

So let’s bring it all together:

1).  A woman who doesn’t want to give birth to a baby is forced to by the republicans.
2).  Insurance carriers would not have to provide maternity care under a republican plan.
3).  Employers do not have to pay equal wages under a republican plan.
4).  SNAP, WIC, and welfare in general would be cut or eliminated under a republican plan.
5).  Money in education would be cut, and teachers forced out of unions under a republican plan.
6).  Student loan rates would be higher under a republican plan.
7).  Pell grants would be less under a republican plan.
8).  The minimum wage and labor laws would be abolished under a republican plan.
9).  People can be fired because of who they love under a republican plan.
10).  Unemployment insurance would be capped or eliminated under a republican plan.
11).  Big banks are allowed to gamble with people’s 401K under a republican plan.
12).  Medicare and Social Security can be cut under a republican plan.
13).  Gay spouses legally married cannot leave belongings to one another under a republican plan.

So after all of that – tell me again your feelings on how “horrible” socialism is, and how oppressive President Obama is to you and your family?  After all of that, you’re going to tell me that the republicans, whether tea party, libertarian, or moderate, are the party of the people?  Yeah, good luck with that.

Supreme Court and Marriage Equality

So here I sit, 10 hours after a ruling that, in my opinion, will forever change the history of LGBTQ rights in this country.  Today's ruling was, on its merits, monumental.  But, today's ruling, for as far as it went, doesn't get us all of the way there.  I've been thinking all day how I wanted to spend my few precious moments to talk about my feelings and my thoughts about the ruling, and I really think four separate buckets are in order.  Four separate ideas that really encompass the truth in today's ruling while looking towards the future to "what's next?"

My Personal Emotions

I think a good a place as any to start is how I am feeling, personally, about the ruling.  In short, I'm in shock - I'm in awe, and I am overwhelmed with positive energy.  I've truly believed that marriage equality would come for all in a matter of a decade, but to realize where we stand now, on the threshold of greatness just gives me chills.  This morning, as I prepared for work, I knew I would be teaching as the ruling came down.  Every bit of me wanted to keep refreshing my Google News until I saw the first breaking coverage of the ruling, but I couldn't.  First word of the breaking news actually came from my brother in a text message reading "hey bud, just wanted to say congratulations on today's ruling.  One step closer to equality!  Love you and Nate.  Celebrate tonight.  You two deserve it."  Immediately my breath was taken away.  My eyes clouded with tears, I could barely continue teaching, but I composed myself until our first break about 11:00am, where I could actually read the news on DOMA.  It wasn't until the lunch break at 12:00 that I was able to discover the news on Proposition 8.

My feelings are hardly containable.  I placed my first status regarding the ruling on Facebook briefly describing my happiness, and how for the first time I felt as though my life, me, as I am, was finally legitimized by my federal government.  And, unfortunately, this concept got a little misunderstood.  Look - I fully realize that I don't need the federal government to give approval for how I live my life.  I've made peace with that.  And I have fully made peace with who I am.  In fact, had a ruling never come down on gay marriage, Nate and I have made plans on how that would look in the future.  It is possible to have commitment ceremonies with who we are, and live our lives peacefully and happily.  But, without the affirmation confirmed by the Supreme Court this morning, our relationship, our commitment to one another is not legal.  It would not be recognized, and it would not be "legitimate" in the eyes of the law.  But by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, it opens the door for our commitments to one another, over time, to in fact be recognized by the federal government.  It allows gay and lesbian soldiers who are legally married in states that allow gay marriage to pass their benefits along to one another, and it allows spouses who die off to leave their worldly things to their loved ones without being taxed.  In short, it makes our relationships as equal and as legally binding as a straight person's relationship.  How can any person who believes in love not feel anything but happiness that love triumphed over hate today?

So, my personal emotions are of joy, of elation, of true happiness in my government.  And, well, one I move past the original emotions of the moment - of this win, I realize that I'm still sad, because the fight, and the struggle continues.

What it Means for "Right Now"

So what does this ruling actually mean?  And what doesn't it mean?  Well, in short, for somebody like me, living in Illinois where gay marriage is in fact still illegal, or my friends in Michigan where it is banned altogether, today's ruling does nothing for us.  In fact, currently there are only 12 states that actually allow same-sex marriage - however the good news is that 3 of the signed on this year, which was a 25% increase from the 9 before this year.  But think about that:  12 states in our union of 50 actually have legally, on the books, laws that allow two consenting adults in a committed relationship to legally enter into a contract with one another and share their lives.  Contrast that with the fact that 30 states in our Union - YES 30 - actually have either constitutional amendments or other types of restrictive laws that actually ban same-sex marriage, or an alternative in some cases, altogether.  Yes - 30 states actually LEGALLY discriminate against their own citizenry.  Those citizens, those gay couples in those states, like the state I am in, or in Michigan, they still don't have rights.  They can't marry the ones they want and they can't share in state or federal benefits if they choose to get married in the state they reside.  They are still forced into a commitment ceremony which while having emotional meaning, has no legal binding. 

What frustrates me further is that the Justices had an opportunity to end legal discrimination altogether with the Proposition 8 case.  While they basically eradicated the fact that the lower court below them had no legal standing to take the case, and therefore let the even lower court below them and their ruling stand, basically allowing same sex marriage to continue in California, they avoided the broader question altogether.  The Supreme Court today could have made, in sweeping precedent, the ruling that indeed indicated that states have no right to criminalize same-sex marriage, therefore removing from the books any law on state's books that had to do with same-sex marriage, effectively making it legal to marry in one decision.  But the Supreme Court, in fact, avoided that ruling overall.  They passed the buck down the road to another case, to another time.  They left the decision up the individual states.  And while I am eternally grateful that they didn't rule in the other direction (how could they, really), today's ruling merely said "let the states decide." 

This isn't a state's rights issues anymore.  Imagine if the same type of ruling had come out of the Civil Rights era - oh wait - it did.  A little case call Brown vs. Board of Education was necessary after an earlier Supreme Court Decision - Plessy vs. Furgeson established that "separate but equal" was the law of the land.  In Plessy vs. Furgeson, it was declared by the Supreme Court that "colored people" were allowed to have separate facilities like drinking fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, schools, and others, as long as they were "equal" to the "white" representation of the same service.  States were allowed to enforce this law as they saw fit.  I see today's Proposition 8 ruling as a Plessy vs. Fergeson type case.  But here's the disturbing part - Plessy was decided in 1896, and it took until 1954 to overturn its decision.  That's correct - it took 58 years to overturn the "separate but equal" states right issue in this country.  So while my elation is clearly overflowing at the rulings today, I'm concerned - could it take 54 years for the Supreme Court to make another decision on gay rights?  If we leave it up the states, there will be a large divide in this country of states that allow it, and states that don't.  Our country can't take that type of division.

I want to comment badly on the fact that it took a 5 to 4 decision - but I'll leave that one alone.  The fact that it is a majority decision is all that matters to me right now.  What scares me is that 4 people in each decision, especially DOMA, feel that we should legally discriminate at the federal level.  But I digress.

What it Means for the Future

The future...wow, I can't even begin to guess.  What this means for the future is that marriage equality isn't going away.  It isn't being silenced.  I'll talk about framing the conversation in a minute, but the future is bright.  Broad public opinion is on our side.  The majority of America agrees, either by not caring what others do as a "government issue" or by true opinion that anybody should be allowed to marry any other adult they wish, that marriage equality should happen, despite what conservative talk shows tell us.  A greater majority of 18 to 30 year olds believe even more.  Generations growing up have the attitude of "seriously, why are we still talking about this?"  The future is truly what we make of it.  We need to continue these conversations - telling people why we fight for what we fight.  What do LGBTQ couples miss out in terms of benefits?  What are their adoption rights to children?  What state rights are they deprived of simply because of who they choose to love?  That information is still circulating as misinformation, and the conservative right still largely wants you to believe that somehow this is a "religious freedom" issue, and not a human rights issue.  It will take all of us continuing to steer the conversation forward so more states adopt measures of marriage equality, until we get to a point where states doing on their own will no longer work, and the Federal Government through the Supreme Court will need to step in.

Framing the Conversation

If today's ruling did one thing for sure, it changed the framing of the message.  It is no longer some progressive"fringe" issue.  It's in the mainstream and it's gaining steam.  Real life elected officials are going to be forced to choose a side.  Presidents will have to make this part of their speech, and given that the majority of Americans see this as a "non-issue" anymore, it's time to remove it from the wedge issues that divide candidates and get them distracted from the real work at hand.  Give the same rights to all Americans in this issue and we can effectively move on to the bigger issues - the economy namely.  The message will continue to grow until it is finally dealt with.  Today is just the start, it isn't a capstone by any means.

So in terms of framing the message let me say this - those of you who feel that the argument is still a "religious freedom" argument, get over it.  Momentum is on our side.  History is on our side.  And now the Supreme Court is on our side.  The public is on our side.  Love is on our side.  God is on our side (yes I said it).  Love wins out.  True, committed, loving one another, treating each other as we would like to be treated is on our side.  And, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's going to go away.  Instead, it's moving faster and faster.  And the mobilization is affecting broad facets of our lives.  News, media, food, jobs, culture - gay marriage is going to happen.  And it's going to happen sooner than you think.  And it's not going to be the downfall of civilization, and God isn't going to smite us, and when it's all said and done, we'll look back at it in 30 years and our kids will go "what the hell were you all thinking? What was the big deal?"  And those that are on the wrong side of history will fade away realizing that you made it more difficult for the rest of us to progress as a culture, as a society.

So in the words of my brother this evening, celebrate tonight!  We've definitely earned it.  And then let's wake up tomorrow and continue the fight.  Good night and good luck!  I love you all.

My Change of Heart on the NSA Scandal

So, I've had some additional time to think about this whole NSA thing, and like many of you, I am not thrilled with the fact that the government is data-mining my information.  And I'm not thrilled with the fact that we have to go to such lengths to protect ourselves from people who have to do us harm.  With that said, a couple of thoughts that I've pondered over the last few days:

1).  If you asked the normal "Joe" on the street what level of privacy are they willing to give up in order to be more protected against attacks from those who want to do us harm, I don't think a normal person, let alone a highly educated person, would know what to say.  I've heard from friends who are literally on both sides - both extremes.  I have friends who say "I don't want to give up any personal privacy in order to stop something from MAYBE happening."  And I've got friends who say "let the government do what they need to do in order to catch the 'bad guys.'"  The fact of the matter is, I don't think there's going to be a black and white solution on this one guys - it's not either or.  The public, that means you and me, John and Jane Q Public, have to start talking about this stuff.  That means we have to put down our Lays potato chips and turn off Kim Kardashian, and American Idol, or "The Voice," and actually have an intelligent discussion about this stuff.  And, once we have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, and we then need to figure out where the majority of people feel we need to be on this issue.  We need to realize that we alone cannot change the issue - we don't get to make that decision.  But, if WE all start to make our voices heard to our representatives in OUR congress, then change can happen.

That brings me to point number 2:

2).  I can hear the cynics now.  I have many of them on my Facebook.  "The system's broken!  Don't trust anybody!  Down with the government!  THEY can't spy on us."  Here's my response to you:  STOP!  Seriously dudes and dudets, stop!  Do you know how absolutely ignorant you sound.  Look, I'm not a "tow the line" kind of guy by any means, but I also realize that total and complete anarchy simply because you don't agree with a a stance the current administration has taken, or the current congress has taken, isn't the way to go either.  When you look at our system, and you look at the pitfalls and prizes it has gone through in our short history, you realize that we are probably the best equipped to handle stuff like this.  And while it's not perfect, it is our system.  And it does still have checks and balances built into it.  And, if it is used correctly by those entitled to use it (US!), it actually will work.  The problem now is that too many of us do not take an active interest in what is actually going on in the government unless it's a presidential year, and we're about 30 days out from election day.  Other than that, the majority of America tunes out and tunes back into said American Idol broadcast, The Voice, or Kim Kardashian.  Do you realize that at one point in time it was actually considered fashionable to truly KNOW what was going on in our country?  And it wasn't that long ago either.

3).  My last point has to do with Edward Snowden - the guy who "leaked" the classified material to the Guardian newspaper.  My last post about him was about hailing him as a "national hero."  I retract my last stance.  Let me explain.  If you think of our system as I do - as a true system of checks and balances.  You have the Executive branch which carries out the vested power granted to it; you have the Congress which makes laws based upon the needs of its citizens; and you have the judicial branch, that makes certain the laws passed are in fact based in constitution - we have a pretty concrete system that makes sure things are running the way they should be running.  And unless you're some conspiracy theorist that honestly believes that all three branches are conspiring and working in tandem, you know that in fact, all three branches are equal from one another and they don't report to one another in any capacity.  With that said, this program, PRISM, among many other "spying" programs, have in fact been put before all three branches of the federal government.  The executive branch has used their power, the judicial branch has confirmed the power, and the congressional branch has granted the power.  And hello - that last branch, the congress, they are US.  We elected them to represent us.  And, the current serving members, or past serving members authorized this type of power to exist for whatever reason.  With that said, this guy, Snowden, he comes along because he doesn't like the fact that we're doing it, and instead dumps classified material about the program, that puts possible lives in danger, simply because he has a difference of opinion.  Folks - no matter how American you think that is, it is not American.

So let me conclude with this - we're not fighting some revolutionary war here against some tyrant of a King.  This isn't the 1700's and we're not constantly struggling to have peace, or life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  No - this is America, and it should be at its best.  Through good times and bad, throughout history, there has always been somebody who has a difference of opinion.  There will always be somebody who has a difference of opinion.  But if we constantly scream "downfall to the American government" every time somebody has a difference of opinion, then we will never have government.  And, in its simplest form, all government is, is the way we choose to organize ourselves as a society.  Do you have a better plan?  Do you know of a better way to organize ourselves that the current system that would maintain the same order and freedom from chaos than we currently have?

Okay, I'm done...thank you.

So I'm going to take a moment to weigh in on this whole NSA taking records of our information via telephone and internet thing. Look - like most of you, it's creepy to know that this stuff is being monitored, and beyond that, that it's law - meaning that our elected representatives passed a law at some point to make it completely legal for our government to do what they're doing. Now look I know that many can say that it goes far beyond the scope of the law as written - and, well, I can't argue against that. The laws, as written, for example - the Patriot Act - were worlds away in technology and those that passed the laws, I don't think, knew the type of world we'd be living in now, in this day and age.

With that said, I don't know where we go from here. WE, as a society, HAVE TO START HAVING THE CONVERSATION - a serious conversation, together, as one, about what liberties we're willing to give up for the sake of safety, or, phrased another way, what public safety deficits are we willing to tolerate? In either case, there are no easy answers, and nobody, NOBODY, is going to be happy. The government's obligation to keep us safe is going to be cried for when we have an incident in this country that they failed to keep us safe at - more people will cry "why wasn't more done?" Yet, in quiet times, like this, the government "spying" on us, like it is, creeps us out, and it infuriates us. But, as I said, WE, as a society, have to have the conversation.

Nothing frustrates me more than people in and around my life who take no active involvement in the government at hand, or politics, because it's "too complicated." And yes, you may very well have a right to not get involved, but damned you if you don't. You're the reason we are where we are at this point. If you haven't taken an active interest in what's going on with our elected officials over the course of the last fifty years - you're partly to blame. Yes, I said it - if you haven't taken some time to truly, actively, put yourself "in the know" and act as another form of "policing" the government, you've helped us to get to this point. It's a sad fact to know that even during presidential elections, only minorities of our citizens who are eligible to vote actually do. The rest - they "don't care" or just "go with the flow," and until something like this pops up, they could care less. That's not what our country is about my friends. Our country was founded on the principle of the people who live in it standing up for what they believe in, and putting leaders into office who stand for those principles too. Yet somewhere along the lines, we've become complacent in our duties as citizens of this country. We've become complacent in the very idea of freedom that we choose to define freedom as "not having to do something I don't want to do." Friends, freedom is not "not having to do something you don't want to do." No - freedom is victory of the tyranny of a ruling governmental body, allowing us to think for ourselves, and collectively make decisions as a society.

Yet - now, it appears, we've given that up. We've allowed our governing body, the elites, who've won the elections, not because of rigging, or fixed-elections, but merely because our general public is too lazy to take notice, the chance to take our very freedom from us and call it "legal." We are to blame for the paradox we are now in, and if we don't act now, and we don't start to make the decisions to fix the problem NOW, the problem will only grow. And we will have a future where the government can legally spy on us, can legally take our information and use it against us, and before we know it, George Orwell's vision of 1984 will become a reality 30 years later than he originally predicted in his book.

And while I'm at it - as far as Snowden, the guy who released this to the world to know and realize it was going on - he needs to be pardoned. He's not a traitor, he hasn't committed treason. He opened our eyes to something we all knew was happening but didn't want to admit. Shame on any prosecutor, congressman, senator, or executive branch official for pursuing him further. He should be hailed as a national hero who allowed us to start this conversation - not an enemy of the state.

And one more thing - I don't say this often, because usually I'm open and ready to listen to people of dissenting viewpoints - don't agree with me? Then keep it to yourself this time - because your very ability to disagree with what I'm saying is protected because people fought for our freedoms to have disagreements with each other and the government. So by disagreeing with my very premise, indirectly, you are agreeing with the idea that freedom should remain free, and thoughts and ideas should not be censored by the government.

Thank you for reading.
-Casey :)

Michigan Ballot Proposals and how I intend to vote...

So, I finally did some digging and asked opinions on each of the six ballot proposals being placed on Michigan's ballot next Tuesday.  There are so many ads on these proposals, my head was ready to spin, but I think I'm ready to declare where I stand:

Proposal 1:  this proposal would allow the current financial manager law to continue.  This means that communities in the state that have financial difficulties balancing their budgets would have an emergency financial manager come in, with complete control, and take over the city, attempting to get its fiscal house back in order.  It also gives that person complete control over all things related to the city, including the ability to dissolve the city, or the government officials within.  It could annul any contracts entered into by the city.  I never liked the law as passed in 2010, and do not support it now.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 1 - it's bad for the state of Michigan, and it's bad for democracy.

Proposal 2:  this proposal would write into the constitution, the RIGHT to collective bargain of public employees.  Currently federal law does allow them to do so, however, under the Emergency Financial Manager law, if it is passed, the EFM could come in and take away the contracts entered into.  This ensures that employees have rights under the constitution of Michigan.  Though there is much hoopla about writing such measures into our constitution, I do believe that this measure in fact is worthy of being written into it.  Public teachers, firefighters, and police officers should have a right to bargain for their wages, their benefits, and the resources they get to use while on the job.  Their pay should stay up with the pay of the private sector, and if we take away their right to bargain for it, we are silencing the very people who keep us safe, and who educate our children.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 2 - it's good for the state of Michigan, and for democracy.

Proposal 3:  this proposal would require that 25% of Michigan's energy come from renewable sources by 2025.  According to a friend who works for DTE, they are on track to be at 15% by 2015.  This is a very good track, but I also feel that if we don't make it a priority, then if the winds of change come roaring, it could be something put on the back-burner.  Green energy is what will keep us moving tomorrow, and will eventually save us money, save the environment, and is a good investment in national security too.  My thought process is, if not now, when?  Oil and natural gas will not last forever, and if we have a chance to be one of the first in the nation to set such a high standard, let's do it.  This bill will create incentives to employee Michigan workers and equipment, limits the energy increases by 1% per year, and will reduce our state's dependence on foreign oil.  So with that said, I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 3 - I feel this will be a good step in the right direction for the state of Michigan.  Not to mention that the majority of those opposing this bill are the ones in the energy sector (DTE Energy, Sheldon Addleson (bankroller of Mitt Romney), Michigan Oil and Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute), because they probably have something to lose on it.

Proposal 4:  this proposal would allow for a more cost-effective system for seniors to find care, as opposed to expensive nursing homes.  It's opposed by many large corporations, and supported by many who favor worker's rights, like the UAW, and the Michigan Education Association.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 4.

Proposal 5:  this proposal would make it a requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in the Michigan legislature for any tax rate increases, or would require it to go to a statewide election in November for tax rate increases.  Look, if we think stale-mates are bad now, just wait until we require 2/3 vote on stuff.  That's a super majority - and it's hard enough to get stuff done with a simple majority.  So because of that I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 5.

Proposal 6:  this proposal would require there to be a statewide vote on any further transportation projects such as bridges and tunnels.  Look, Mr. Maroon, the man who owns the Ambassador Bridge is simply sour - he doesn't want a second bridge in Detroit because he profits majorly from the bridge he owns.  He's been trying to shut down this projects for years.  This bridge would bring jobs to metro Detroit, bring major commerce to metro Detroit, and is fully funded by the Windsor and Canadian government.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 6 because it's time to build this bridge for Michigan.

Okay, that's where I stand.  Thanks to everybody who helped me formulate my opinions on the matter.  I did some research.  The League of Woman Voters helped a bit, along with this website:  http://www.leagueofresponsiblevoters.org/

Anyway, happy election time!  It's almost here!

Acceptance Should Be Inevitable

Published in the Eastern Echo, Thursday, October 18, 2012.

Acceptance Should be Inevitable

by Casey Wooley

Staff Columnist

So here we sit, a few weeks before the election that has bewildered us for the last two years. A few weeks before the choice before us becomes real. And what do we know?

We know that Mitt Romney is a Big-Bird hating, Olympic-horse owning, 47%-contempt driven fundraiser, who lives high on the hog.. And we know that President Obama is secretly not an American, practices in the Muslim faith, wants to turn America into a socialist nation, and is pushing to take away people's gun rights.

I'm glad we have that out of the way. Now, let's shift back to reality.

Whatever your political persuasion, the reality of life is that in just a few weeks, one of these two men is going to be elected President. And whoever this person is will have to somehow figure out a way to govern us in a very politically-charged, partisan government. So sticking to one's ideologies once this election is over will prove to be detrimental to American interests.

Now look, I am a full-on Barack Obama supporter. But, it's also no secret to those who know me that I am the last person to condemn any person in my life for being a Romney supporter. My secret to why is simple. In the long run, either man is capable of running this country. Yes, I said it.

Moreover, for either man to succeed in running this country, they will have to cast away their partisan interests and work to govern from the middle for us to rebound in the way we all want. And for the country to succeed, whatever party is in Congress is going to have give up their personal agendas in order for this to work.

Neither side can be radicalized if we are to move forward. Personally, I'd love to see President Obama win a second term and raise taxes to put more government programs to work for us. Just as many of my Mitt Romney supporting friends would love to see him outlaw Roe vs. Wade and form a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman. But none of those policies are what this country as a whole needs right now.

So when the dust settles on November 7, and we have a clear winner, he must be willing to engage the other side and work together. It's how we have gotten through many historical gridlocks in the past.

Just look to the framing of our constitution for the very first example. The Senate and House of Representatives were two of this country's greatest compromises. Smaller states wanted equal representation with larger states. And larger states wanted representation based upon population. And so the two chambers of Congress were formed.

There's also precedent in modern history too. Bill Clinton, after a tumultuous two years attempting to push too many left-wing ideas, lost control of the Congress. And had he not shifted gears moving into the 1996 election to become more moderate, he would have lost. But, after his reelection, he stayed moderate, working with the republican Congress, and it was the first time in modern American history that we not only balanced the budget, but kept a surplus.

We as citizens all have a responsibility to accept that our politicians need to compromise in order to get work done. And moving into 2013, if we don't live to that responsibility, America will head down a dangerous road it hasn't traveled before – where political ideologies keep Washington in total gridlock, and the American people left thinking “what went wrong?”

Another Suicide in Gay Community

This article was published in the Eastern Echo on October 11, 2012.  It hasn't made it to the online edition as of the publishing of this blog, however it was in the print edition on Eastern Michigan University's campus, along with various outlets in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Another Suicide in Gay Community

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

As I woke up October 4^th to start my daily adventures, I turned on my iPhone and scanned through my news-feed on Facebook. The usual posts were there - “Romney this,” and “Obama that,” and of course the subtle flow of continuous Internet memes filled my mind with delight.

But unfortunately, my daily ritual was quickly cut short, as an eerie number of posts centered on the same horrible theme – suicide. As it turns out, the gay community lost another teenager to suicide the night before, and many of the friends on my feed were expressing sadness, guilt, regret, and every other conventional feeling one can think of in moments such as these.

I personally didn't know this individual. And as it turned out, many expressing such feelings through Facebook didn't necessarily know him either. But, as ripples travel through water, so did news of this horrible tragedy spread through the gay community at such rapid speed, that by the end of the day, many had heard and expressed their condolences to his family and friends.

Hearing such sad news brings back memories of Rutger's University freshman Tyler Clementi. A few years ago he was videotaped by his roommate having his first intimate relationship with another man. That video tape found itself online, and unfortunately he felt it was just too much to bear and he killed himself because of the shame he experienced.. His suicide was the start of the very popular “it gets better” campaign. And while the suicide a few days ago did not have anything to do with bullying, it certainly sparked those conversations once more.

Ironically, the Twitter-verse also lit up on October 2^nd with a completely different scenario, but also centered around the same concept of bullying somebody because of their differences. As it turns out, WKBT-TV reporter Jennifer Livingston out of La Crosse, Wisconsin had received some very hateful emails about her weight. In those emails, the writer indicated that he is surprised that her “physical condition hasn't improved for many years,” and that she is not a “suitable example for this community's young people.”

But Ms. Livingston did something that many are afraid to do. She stood up for herself. She stood up to the bully attempting to make her differences more important than they really are.

And she did it in a very public way – as an editorial at her local station where she reports. She called out the writer of the email and called him for what he was – a bully. And she demanded that he stop his hateful rhetoric.

In the wake of this horrible tragedy of a young person taking his own life, it's important for all of us in the community of human beings to recognize that bullying has to stop. While this most recent suicide may not have been the result of bullying directly, bullying in the gay community is a huge issue. It represents a larger problem across many divides – that those who do not understand the differences we all have, seek to use those differences as hateful, stereotypical attacks.

This is unacceptable. And we all collectively have a responsibility to recognize when such prejudicial attacks exist and to stop them immediately. Stand up for somebody when somebody else seeks to tear them down. Make your voice heard that such language and actions are unacceptable. And affirm to those who are being bullied that they are loved and respected because they too are human beings, just like everybody else.