Jan's Stinkin Blog: January 2014

Saturday, January 18, 2014

SUPREME COURT: Free Speech or harassment?

There is a disturbing case making its way through the U.S. Supreme Court these days and it has to do with our right to free speech.

Our First Amendment to the Constitution bars Congress from making any law(s) abridging the freedom of speech.

But as all our rights guaranteed by our Constitution, are not absolute but must be regulated, so is that of free speech. We all are aware of the law against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater as well as saying bad things about someone that are obviously not true, etc.

In this case (McCullen vs. Coakley) the free speech challenge comes from a Massachusetts state law forbidding anti-abortion protesters from a 35 foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic.

I will not go into the absurdist details of this issue but suffice it to say, we are all aware of these misguided fetus worshipers that do not care anything about the woman undergoing the abortion or even what would happen to the fetus if the woman does not have an abortion, all they care about is that an abortion does not happen.

For this reason, they feel that if they badger the woman all the way to the clinic doors, the woman will change her mind and not have the abortion that she, her husband and her doctor decided she should have.

My concern here is with the rights of the woman wanting an abortion; does she have any rights against being harassed at a very difficult time for her? Does she have a right to feel “safe” entering the clinic and that issue is very strong given the violence that has been associated with abortion clinics and workers in those clinics?

Does the abortion clinic have a right to protect their patients as they enter the clinic?

I have to point out at this time that there are legal buffer zones around government and military institutions. Now there are legal quiet zones protecting military funerals. There are laws as to how far political supporters must stay away from polling places and even the Supreme Court has a no-protest rule in front of its building…so a precedent does exist.

What we have here is “safety” vs. “free speech” and as you have seen in the prohibition against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the “safety” issue takes precedence every time.

Even though a 35 foot buffer in front of the clinic door will not prevent someone intent on doing grave physical damage to building or the people associated with that building, it does grant a modicum of protection.

The other problem I have here is our rights against being harassed…do we have any rights in this matter?

Does the right to free speech give the speaker the right to yell in my ear and face something I do not want to hear?

I don’t think the First Amendment right to free speech had in mind the nonsense being presented by these anti-abortion fanatics; their views are not being abridged in any way. They can shout these views from 35 feet around the clinic door so they are not being silenced in any way. What they cannot do is get in a person’s face and scream their bullshit nose to nose and so how is that abridging their constitutional right to free speech.

We have truly entered into an age of absurdity…

Wonder if the clinics can use a law barring people from impeding normal and legal business activity from being carried on in a place of business?

Friday, January 17, 2014

PREGNANT AND IN A COMA IN TEXAS...

A recent headline HUSBAND OF PREGNANT WOMAN WANTS HER OFF LIFE SUPPORT…has caught my eye since it seems to address a number of important societal issues.

The case involves a 33 year old mother of one who had a pulmonary embolism and is now on life support in an unconscious state. Her husband wants he off life support since that is what they, as a married couple, agreed to; no vegetative state existence.

The problem is that Marlise (woman in coma) is pregnant (18 weeks) and happens to be in the state of Texas which prohibits withholding life support from a patient, regardless of her wishes.

The first question I have concerns the “sanctity” of a “married” relationship. By that I mean the “absolute” right of a husband as to the welfare of his wife and vice versa.

I understand that the state of Texas is extremely regressive when it comes to social issues especially the issue of abortion but for that issue to supersede the rights of a husband seems to me, to violate a “natural” law of nature and our society.

The husband, who is aware of the pregnancy, could opt to keep his wife alive until the fetus is viable but he chose NOT TO and I can understand on a number of levels where that would be a preferable decision for him and his family.

The hospital cannot be blamed; they are just following Texas law so who does this suffering husband turn to at this time when all he wants to do is honor his wife’s wishes never to be left in a vegetative state something my wife and I have also promised to each other.

This matter goes to the central problem with the issue of abortion and that is that other people, other than the wife and husband who combined their egg and sperm to produce a fetus, are allowed to dictate what is done or not done with that fetus.

Opposition to abortion is usually based on some perceived religious precept and I say perceived because there are no biblical laws banning abortion but of course you can find anything in the Bible to support whatever view you want even if those views are contradictory.

In my opinion, no religious law, perceived or actual, can counter the law of nature. Nature makes possible the act of procreation between a man and a woman and therefore makes them not only the creators of life but also the nurturers of that life. But as creators of that clump of cells that may turn into a human being, they also can be the destroyers of their creation; it is as simple as that.

You may counter that with a religious belief that only God creates and destroys life. Well that is OK if you believe in that type of God but that is only a “belief” and not a “fact”. What is a “fact” is that nature allows humans to create and destroy life.

Our society puts a huge emphasis on the bond of marriage whether a bond sanctified by a religion or a civil authority. That bond between two individuals, once sanctified, becomes a bond (with all the rights inherent in that bond), sacrosanct and above any other authority…let no man put asunder!

Otherwise, what is the point.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

ECONOMY: Income Inequality Issue in 2014

I haven’t written on economic subjects but it appears that the time has come.

The subject of INCOME INEQUALITY IN AMERICA has been raised on a number of levels including in my own household with my wife (the socialist) eager to argue her point every time an article comes up in the paper addressing the issue.

I think everyone can agree that income equality or at least narrowing the great gap / divide in income in this country is a good idea not only for our economy (fuels growth) but for the welfare of individual Americans and their families.

Fact: Income inequality is the highest since the 1920s; the income gap between the top 1% and the remaining 99%.

The cause(s) of this growing income gap and the solutions to narrow it are what the discussions / arguments are all about since there is no definitive data available to guide us; all we know is that the gap is wide and widening.

I have been reading about a number of approaches to this problem with one from the left being income distribution. Put into plain language, this means taxing the rich to give to the poor or rob Peter to pay Paul (Robin Hood philosophy).

These same people want a return of union power which would compel industry to raise wages by threatening strikes. They want to raise the minimum wage and institute a maximum wage based on a ratio of top to bottom wage amounts.

Another approach talks about educating Americans to be able to take the skilled labor jobs that now go wanting or are filled by foreign workers.

There is no question that we have seen a sea change in labor with globalization. No more high paying unskilled jobs which the middle class depended on to be in the middle class; having some type of skill in demand by the marketplace is now basically a must.

I do not have an answer to how best to narrow the income gap in this country but I do know that paying more for unskilled labor ($15/hour demanded by fast food workers) is counter-productive; it will contribute to inflation and will lead to more automation and therefore higher unemployment.

Income Inequality is the economic issue of 2014 and I will be following the discussion / debate closely because it will impact our society in a major way…so glad I am a boomer and retired…feel bad for the younger generation but hey, they are young and have time to adjust.

DETROIT CITY COUNCIL: Told you so...

I recently wrote about the Detroit City Council and how the same ole’ assholes (corrupt & incompetent) were placed in positions of leadership indicating to us all that things have not changed.

The two people that represent the good ole’ days of corruption and incompetence are Brenda Jones, the council president and George Cushingberry, Jr. the council pro tem.

It only took a couple of days for Cushingberry to show his true colors being stopped by police coming out of a strip joint with an open liquor bottle and marijuana in his car.

The officers were ordered by a supervisor to let Cushingberry go even though the officers felt that his belligerent behavior and other evidence found at the scene should have resulted in an arrest.

Well, as you may expect, all hell broke loose after the incident went public with newspaper columnists and TV anchors decrying the fact that here we go again, another black eye for Detroit and its leaders.

Cushingberry did the usual; he played the race card saying he was stopped for “driving while black” even though the officers that stopped him were not white (one black, the other Hispanic). One black council member said that this excuse only works when stopped by police in white areas like Grosse Pointe and not in a city that is more than 80% black. I think for Cushingberry, it was just a knee jerk reaction.

So the question remains how and why do people like Cushingberry get elected to positions of power and leadership.

Number one, he is black and number two, his name is recognizable as someone who has been in Michigan politics for many years (he is 61). What people do not know is that his history and reputation is pretty tarnished with a number of illegalities, etc.

What would prevent people like Cushingberry from being re-elected is an electorate that is well informed about the candidates. I think this is starting to be the case as evidenced by the election of a mayor that had the experience and reputation that Detroit needed if not the right skin color.

Black journalists in Detroit and Michigan have pointed to Cushingberry as an embarrassment to Detroit but also to all African-Americans trying to help Detroit climb out of its economically devastating and personally demoralizing condition.

I think Cushingberry will single-handedly show the citizens of Detroit who NEVER to elect to any position of power or accountability; those days must end now!

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

DETROIT CITY COUNCIL: Elected same old twits as officers...why?

I have been very optimistic about the chances of the city of Detroit to climb out of the morass it has found itself after years of corruption and gross incompetence in city government.

Finally the citizens of Detroit voted for a mayor based on that person’s history of accomplishments as a city and county leader and not on the color of his or her skin.

The historic bankruptcy the city finds itself in will eventually work as it is supposed to and give the city and its citizens a new, fresh start at rebuilding itself; many young professionals are already looking to move into the city based on a spirit of revitalization.

The city council, long a source of corruption and incompetence saw, for the first time, elections by district and not at-large. This brought direct district representation and at long last, some much needed diversity.

So you can imagine my outrage when the new city council elected as its president and vice president two people that are connected to the corruption and incompetence that brought the city down in the first place.

What the hell were these young newly elected council members thinking? Are they that naïve that they cannot see that the city desperately needs new leadership and not the same old assholes that helped do the city in?

Brenda Jones and George Cushingberry will play their usual obstructionist game trying to make themselves leaders of the city instead of the mayor and the emergency manager. I hope that the new mayor and the emergency manager will take no shit from these twits and relegate them to where they belong; a council with no power where they cannot harm the city.

POPE FRANCIS: Priests as Little Monsters?

We’ll let us start the year with a great snow storm, arctic temperatures and a blog about Pope Francis; a very fascinating and historic figure.

The Pope’s recent headline grabbing comments included “POPE WARNS PRIESTS CAN BECOME ‘MONSTERS” By Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press as seen in the Detroit News 1/4/2014.

Basically the pope was warning church superiors of the failings of seminary training.

I have always stated that taking a kid after high school and placing him in a seminary where after some years, the kid becomes a priest, is fundamentally a flawed process since the “kid” is never allowed to experience “real” life and therefore, in my opinion, never fully reaches a normal male adulthood but is expected to “minister” to a community with a presumed “wisdom” of how life is to be led properly as per God’s direction.

This is an obvious absurdity and the current pope knows this and therefore is trying to address this issue. Francis did not join the priesthood until much later in his life becoming a chemist after attending university and actually serving as a night club bouncer; he also contemplated marriage.

Francis said of seminary training that “We must form their hearts; otherwise we are creating little monsters. And then the little monsters mold the people of God. This really gives me goose bumps”.

Francis does not outline the exact changes he wants to make to current seminary training but I think he wants to change the product produced by seminaries especially as evidenced by the current crop of church leaders that preach how people should behave (anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, etc.) without understanding how society and the people in that society, function.

I believe that young adult males (18) who desire to become priests, should attend a secular university and receive a degree before they are accepted into a seminary. Otherwise, entering a seminary after high school is the same as entering military service where the very impressionable young men are basically molded into soldiers / priests before learning to think for themselves which comes through life experience; in fact, they don’t want you to think or have any independent thoughts; the easier it will be for you to follow orders without hesitation.

It appears that Pope Francis has been thinking about issues in the church for quite some time and just when he was ready to retire and spend the remaining years in prayer and contemplation, he gets a chance to act on his concerns and change history!