Power to the People

Music has always been used as a means of expression. It inspires and motivates. Yet with lists such as this one named 20 Most Controversial Songs of All Time we see that music can also be crude and offensive.

Recently in the rap music world there was an uproar on lyrics that were said to be offensive. This song happened to be Rick Ross’ verse in Rocko’s U.O.E.N.O. The verse in question is “Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it. I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain’t even know it.” Lyrics like this clearly depicting rape sparked raged a huge back lash for one of today’s most popular rappers. That being said, music has always been a source of controversy. I do not at all condone Ross’ lyrics but when music is constantly used to criticize culture, demean women, glorify crime- among other things, when is the line drawn and how far is too far?

The thing is that I don’t know that there is a right or wrong answer to this question. While for some a song may be entirely offensive, it could be poetic or relatable to another. Sort of in the way that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are songs like Killing In the Name by Rage Against The Machine and Fuck The Police by N.W.A. that take a look at our government, our flaws and expose them to the world. Songs that are the cause of controversy and despite how crude some songs can be, they tend to be effective in their execution. These songs are songs that are infamous for their meaning- Killing In the Name was written in retaliation to the Rodney King beating and Fuck the Police an expression of racial profiling and racism. Messages, that as controversial as they may be have been, have captured the voice of the times.

We do not share the same beliefs or cultures or opinions. Therefore we won’t all agree on when music takes things too far. In truth I believe that we need to protest the things that we don’t agree with. Continuing my example of Rick Ross, the line highlighted above was the cause of so much backlash that Ross was forced to apologize for the line. Not all artists have the same motivations for creating controversial songs. Some do it because they believe in their message and others for the sake of publicity. After all, in such industries it is said that no publicity is bad publicity. However, regardless of any notions or messages we, the public and the fans, can make or break a musicians career. We are the ones who buy the albums, request them on the radio and attend the concerts. We are their bread and butter and if we choose to stand against them because of the message they are portraying in their music, as do our friends and family, it is the ultimate backlash. One lost fan in the scope of things is pretty insignificant but a lost fan who has something to say about an artist and makes their message be heard can be a devastating blow.

Music is a means of expression- It inspires and motivates. Yet music can also be crude and offensive. Ultimately we as individuals must decide when music goes too far. We must decide what are boundaries are and ensure that we do not condone or promote those artists/songs that we consider disrespectful. We must take a stand as a society and draw our own lines because we have the power to stand up for what we believe in and the power to make a difference.

Is Affirmative Action Crucial to America?

Has America progressed into a diverse nation where certain laws forbidding discrimination are no longer necessary? With a two- term African American president at the helm of the country, some citizens believe we have overcome our negative past, prejudices, and preconceived notions in regards to our differences.

I don’t dispute facts, as a diverse nation, we have made great strides in bridging the race and equality gap. Many impoverished minorities manage to emerge through cracks of inner city concrete jungles to rise above poverty, deprivation, and less than desirable socioeconomic conditions. Those success stories are few and far in between, accounting for a small percentage of the minority population, who escape an all too familiar cycle of hell to arrive at the promise land of prosperity. What about their brethren? Still, there are large quantities of minorities who are marginalized because of ill social circumstances, partly due to a system of classism and race discrimination which currently exists in this country. To make a claim that we have achieved such heights where racism is obsolete is utterly absurd. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the 60’s, thanks to President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights Act were created to balance the playing field, diversify, and repair a broken system in which African Americans were widely discriminated against. Legislation created during this era helped pave the way for minorities to receive fair and equal access to employment, career advancement, voting rights, education and federal programs predominantly restricted to whites despite race, creed, color, gender, or national origin. No doubt their agendas were a step in the right direction, but what happens when right wing conservative organizations target racial equality as an attempt to destroy progress made during the civil rights movement?

– Photo Credit: www.taboojive.com

Case in point, last week the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Fisher v. University of Texas which challenges the use of affirmative action in admissions. The petitioner Abigail Fisher, a white woman sued the university over their admissions policy. Ms. Fisher, backed by special interest groups and private donors (The Project on Fair Representation) states she’s a victim of said policies, citing reverse discrimination.

It’s true, affirmative action is used in most public and private institutions admissions process as a means of diversifying their student body, but it isn’t the primary provision that determines admittance.The university automatically admits students in the top ten percent of his or her class, then factors in race and other circumstances. Pro Publica published an article which looks at the conditions she faced when she applied to the university and the reason her application was denied. According to their research, Ms. Fisher didn’t possess the potential and academic prowess to meet the university’s standards. And race didn’t play a major part in her denial. Perhaps, had she been ambitious enough to achieve high academic marks, she would’ve been included in the top ten percent of her academic class, having no problems being admitted to the university of her preference.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court sustained the current affirmative action legislation, but in fairness redirected the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further review. The lower appellate court was given orders to thoroughly scrutinize the university’s use of race in admissions, assuring they considered all other options before focusing on race. I applaud the high court for practicing sound judgment by standing in support of institutions of higher learning, and their responsible incorporation of affirmative action in the architecture of admissions as a means to create a diverse student body. What this means is previous advancements made in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a case which permitted the use of race as a tool to variegate college campuses remains unchanged. The court’s ruling ultimately proved that Ms. Fisher’s legal team failed to demonstrate she was victimized by affirmative action in the admissions process.

-Photo Credit: http://blogs.edgehill.ac.uk

The question remains, when will issues involving race and equality be passé in America? Culturally, intolerance has become a part of the American experience. The depths and effects of bigotry run deep, and without healing, hatred taught by our ancestors becomes transgenerational. Perhaps, one day, the use of affirmative action policies to keep the scales of equality balanced won’t be needed. But the likely hood of that occurring is slim to none. Until we address the issues that prohibit us from moving forward as a progressive race of people, the fight for justice and equality will continue.

American Jabberjay’s

In the trilogy, The Hunger Games, written by Suzanne Collins, we are introduced to a world where government goes wrong. Not that I want to get into the decline of human nature, but there is one aspect of the novel that I would like to focus on. It’s the Jabberjays. According to the Wikipedia definition, a Jabberjay was “engineered to be able to remember human conversations and repeat them verbatim with human voices, and thus to be able to spy on the rebels with small likelihood of arousing suspicion.” In essence these little birds were bred with the intention of floating above the human population, undetected, only to report back to the government the movement of the people and anyone that was plotting against them.

If you’ve read the series (if you haven’t, I strongly recommend that you do) you’ll see how this bird in the sky back fired on the Capitol (their government) and how eventually, in conjunction with other government strong holds, the people united against the evil of the Capitol and triumphed. Fast forward to the real world and I can’t help but to be reminded of the Jabberjays when I think of the current administrations use of drones. A drone is an aircraft without a human pilot, or as more commonly referred to as, an unmanned aerial vehicle. The idea behind them is that they can be placed over enemy territory and spy on their target. Just as the Jabberjays, they are used for intelligence purposes. Unlike the Jabberjays, they can be armed with weapons and with pinpoint accuracy take out a target without the use of military personnel on the ground.

In an attempt to bring combat missions to an end, thereby securing the safety of our troops, these drones are constantly being used on the war against terror. To date, 3,540 people have been reported killed by these drone attacks. Where they all terrorist who want nothing more than to hurt the American people? Nope! It’s been reported that anywhere between 411 to 884 were civilians and 168 to 197 were children. (Click here for the source). Now, do those numbers sound accurate to you? I mean there is a huge difference in those calculations. I am not good in math, but last time I checked there was a big difference between 411 and 884. Who exactly is taking down these stats? I wonder. . . what color crayon did they use? I hope it was pink.

According to a speech by President Obama dated May 23, 2013, he stated that drone attacks are precise. Precise? Really? How on earth can they be precise when you have so many civilians and children injured in the process? Did the calculating pink crayon smear in the fit of joy of nailing that one terrorist, thereby fudging the precise number of casualties? The President further stated that “putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.” Now forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the injury of so many civilians and children harm our international standing, anyway?

I’m pretty sure that I don’t stand alone when, if, confronted with the horrible situation of standing next to some terrorist who was about to be taken out by our military; I would prefer a soldier, who has discretion, to walk up with an M-16 and take out the terrorist they are looking for instead of a drone dropping a bomb into the “general area.” I don’t want to suffer for the hate that someone else has in their heart, just because I had the misfortune of shopping in the same supermarket they do. When this administration is confronted with the number of civilian casualties, the American people are reminded that no war is without casualties. The people are also told that the terrorist death toll to date dwarfs the amount of casualties in the drone attacks. In other words. . . . its OK, the American government isn’t as bad as the terrorist. When would any American want to be in the same ball park as a terrorist anyway? Both literally and figuratively.

Photo Credit: http://www.wired.com

According to the President, congress is briefed on all strikes and they do not intend on having armed drones fly anywhere over the United States. The goal of the American government is to “detain, interrogate and prosecute” all terrorist. Americans do not have to deal with the horrific humming of drones following us to the nearest Starbucks in the morning. Ummm, well, that might soon be a wrong statement. First of all, there were American citizens who were targeted in the drone attacks. Four to be exact. Hey remember this little thing called The Constitution? What happened to due process? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment “prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.” Let me reiterate that for you, PROHIBITS ALLLLL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT FROM DEPRIVING INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO LIFE!! However, when any American citizen plots war against America and is unable to be captured, then according to President Obama, “citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected by a SWAT team.” They have used this fear of terror in order to deny these rights to U.S citizens abroad. How far can this fear of terror extend?

This raises the alert flag to red. Laws and rules were put in place for a reason. If basic constitutional rights are denied to citizens who are outside of the country, what’s going to stop these same rights to be denied to a citizen who is at home? Whose to say that a sly comment or a disagreement with a policy or a person isn’t enough to claim that YOU TOO have raged war against the U. S of A and don’t deserve the right of due process and being tried in front of a jury of your peers. What happens when the First Amendment is used against you?

If being an American citizen is not enough to shield one from the ideals of a free nation, don’t be surprised when the next speech that comes from the White House is closed out with “may the odds be ever in your favor.”

The Gay Debate Encroaches On The First Amendment

For many years, marriage has been socially defined and recognized solely between man and woman. It is the very foundation which healthy familial relationships are built upon. Now, same sex couples are seeking the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, but I am opposed to their wishes here’s why:

By permitting homosexual couples the right to marry under federal law it is a threat to First Amendment. How so? The first amendment grants Americans the ability to practice their religious beliefs freely. If your religion speaks against same sex unions, one should be allowed to practice the principles of that faith without legal implications. In the case of Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, a lesbian couple filed suit against the private establishment stating the owner denied them tenancy because they were gay. The arbiter over the case ruled in favor of the couple citing discrimination, never taking into consideration the owners First Amendment rights.

In regards to free exercise of religion the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the First Amendment states one is able to practice their religion freely, then the owner of Aloha Bed & Breakfast rights were encroached on. I believe the judge in the above case handed down a ruling which conflicts with federal law. This case forces us to examine how far the hand of protection is extended where the First Amendment is concerned. Does it exclusively protect the principles and institution of religion, or does it also cover the action of putting those principles into practice?

Cases such as Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast and others like it will be used as a position to sue private business, organizations, or religious institutions who reject same sex couples by enforcing their First Amendment rights.

In a letter penned to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson expressed his concern for government interfering with and individuals right to practice their religious beliefs stating: (1) “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

The constitution grants certain indelible rights to the people protecting their individual preferences. It’s injudicious for a government or any group to force a lifestyle or system of beliefs upon another that conflicts with their own. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to validate same sex unions on a federal level, it will be the death of the First Amendment as we know it. Legalizing same sex marriages threatens the blue print our country was built on. It compromises rights of people who disagree with gay marriage, thus taking away certain religious freedoms and freedom of expression.

References

1. Wikipedia: Separation of Church and State

♥’s Do Not Have a Gender

As I sit in this coffee house writing the New York Times Bestseller The Definition of Love, (ok, it might be a bestseller in my head, but that’s where it starts). I begin to run out of ideas. What does a writer do in a crowded coffee house when in need of some inspiration? Well you begin to look around and analyze the people around you. I stare off into the distance and come across an unlikely couple. Their hair doesn’t match. One is blonde, the other a brunette. I laugh to myself and jot this difference in my mental notebook. Then I notice the exchanges between them. The lingering stares filled with pure adoration and comfort. The gentle lip curls as they exchange words barely audible, but easily understood between them. The passionate caresses that marks a sigh of relief on each others face. They have found something so pure, something that the heart desperately desires. A thing that is intangible to some. They have found true love. I stare for inspiration. Others stare because the couple I have been observing are of the same sex.

Love is love. No matter how you look at it. Just as a plant needs water and sun to grow, so does a human need love to flourish. Each human was born with the desire to love and be loved. It isn’t something to be hated or ignored. Love is what makes the world go ’round. If we didn’t love anything then this world would be chaos. Think about it for a second. Without the environmentalist, we would never know what the beach is supposed to look like, what the air is supposed to smell like and what water is really supposed to taste like. This world would be in shambles and you wouldn’t care. Actually, you wouldn’t be around to care, because there would be no one to nourish you and look out for your well being as a child because no one loved you enough to look out for you as an infant.

I know. I know. You don’t want to hear it. However, what exactly is the, dare I say it, hatred with the LGBT community? Lets set aside the religious or scientific aspect of it. Face it, it’s a tired argument. So over it! God made Adam & Eve not Eve & Eva..etc etc. From hormones to brain waves and all the other eclectic things, no one really dives into the issue at hand. The heart wants what the heart wants. Its a fact that falling in love causes a chemical reaction. One cannot control what the heart demands.

There are certain desires that the heart craves that cannot be explained logically. Love. It’s a feeling. Its an emotion that overcomes every inch of reason and all one is left with is an unaltered pure devotion to the person that caused this madness within you. There’s a saying that you can’t control who you love. I believe this. There are many odd couples out there where you wonder, how is it that she’s sooo hot and he’s sooo not? Regardless of what you think, what you say… she looks at him as he is the most amazing thing that’s ever happened to her. Why is it wrong when this look is shared between a woman and a woman or a man and a man? Isn’t it enough that they found someone to share their lives with?

The tides are shifting all over the world and no matter what you believe, this issue is not going to go away. People are fighting for their right to marry who they deem fit and to share a life together without prejudice and without restraint. Laws are being changed all over the place. I was always taught as a child that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all. Stand firm in your beliefs, it’s your God given right to do so. It is not, however, your right to judge and to attempt to tarnish a heart desire that someone else has. If it’s not for you, then GREAT! Live your life accordingly. Allow each person to explore their own happiness and wish them the best. Life isn’t about whose wrong or right. It’s about fulfilling the desires of the heart in a safe environment. After all, that is the true meaning of love, isn’t it?

CISPA – Friend or Foe?

It’s 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon and you sluggishly trek back to your pint-sized holding cell at the office. After indulging in a high calorie meal from your favorite fast food restaurant, slacker mode kicks in. Face it, you’d rather be browsing the World Wide Web until it’s time to clock out, than crunching numbers for the wanker’s who sign your paycheck. This afternoon your drug of choice is YouTube. After all, who hasn’t wasted a few brain cells watching mindless content generated by YouTube’s driving force. I’m talking about people like you. Yes’ you! Now back to the scenario. So, you search for the latest episode of “You are not the father” posted by your favorite YouTube user, when the following message appears: Due to SOPA’s copyright violation the content posted by user EyePirateU2Day has been prohibited. All subscribers associated with this account will be subject to search by anal probe with no lube. All property used to access or illegally download content from the site will be confiscated. Posting or illegally downloading intellectual property or content backed by the SOPA act of 2012 is punishable by a minimum of 5 years in prison.

Oh shit, panic mode! Visions of militia men armed with large phalluses, gearing up to kick down your office door dance in your head. Afraid the powers that be will find out about your unproductive afternoon activities, you immediately unplug the computer from the wall in hopes of thwarting “big brother” from tracking down your IP address. Relax! This is the most extreme case but you get the picture.

Thankfully, SOPA and PIPA we’re blasted to brinks of extinction by citizens like you putting the pressure on, and taking action against “The Man.” Round of applause you should be proud of yourself! Unfortunately, remnants of bills such as SOPA & PIPA have morphed into the more dangerous Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which threatens your privacy and freedom of speech on the internet.

What It Does

CISPA (H.R. 3523) the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, written by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), is disputable legislation which converges on sharing information on the internet and “cyber security.” When the misinformed think about cyber security, one would believe it only involves antivirus software or firewalls installed in their pc; I like to call these the “condoms” that protect our hardware. Now, picture CISPA as a condom with holes; its primary job is to assist ISP in investigating cyber attacks against co-op’s and federal agencies, by providing our government with information on hackers and countries engaged in cyber espionage. But what price would we pay allowing ISP free reign by providing information at their convenience, to the government, about private citizen’s online activities?

Why It’s Disliked

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), hacktivist, and other civil liberties groups are against sharing private citizen’s information under the guise of cyber security, without due process of law. There is a need to provide a certain level of cyber policing; with an understanding it is necessary in catching criminals. However, the holes in CISPA allow “virtual spying” on average citizens web activities, without the appropriate system of checks and balances, protecting the general public’s rights. After all, who wants big brother tracking their twisted online porn addictions? Now I have your undivided attention, you’re right! This isn’t cool at all. Please don’t rest on your laurels, there’s work to be done.

What You Should Do About It

It’s imperative that concerned Internet users like you tell Congress to stop this bill. Instead of filling out random online questionnaires about nonsense, take the time to fill out an online petition or send a tweet with the hash tag #CISPAalert, expressing your thoughts as a means of protest. There are several organizations armed with the tools to assist you in fighting this bill. To make it easy for you check out the websites below for petitions and up to date information on CISPA.

Avaaz: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/
EFF: https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9048
ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/action-factory

The Second Amendment

A little girl wakes up in the morning to the sweet scents of coffee and her mother’s favorite perfume. Mom is sitting on her bed, rubbing her forehead and giving her sweet kisses in order to wake her up gently & peacefully. It’s pure love. The little girl smiles says good morning and hugs her mom. Mom hugs back, rubs her hair and tells her it’s time for breakfast. The little girl hops out of bed and runs over to her parent’s bedroom where she knows her father is getting ready for work. She runs over to him and he picks her up in his arms, gives her a strong hug and a loving kiss on the cheek. The family has breakfast together, drop off their daughter at school and continue on with their work day without a care in the world. They know they will see their daughter again after school. So sure, in fact, that they don’t even question the safety of their child at school. Oh how times have changed.

President Obama has addressed the nation many times on how this needs to be a thing of the past. He has stated and reassured Americans that this is an epidemic that needs to be cut at the seam for the safety of our children and the nation. The culprits are guns. The only way to guarantee peace of mind is to ignore the Second Amendment and destroy guns. Guns are the blame of the senseless murders that have occurred over the last couple of years. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, the crimes could have been prevented if citizens did not hide behind the cloth of the Constitution.

I want you to take a good look at the 23 Executive Actions that the President signed on January 16, 2013. Now, I know that the majority of the crimes that have been publicized are involving guns, but correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t someone have to pull that trigger and aim at someone in order to hurt or murder that individual? Why is it that the thirteenth, 13^th, action state “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime”? Now, I’m not one to agree with Bill O’Reilly, but I have to admit the man has a point when he stated that there should be a mandatory ten year federal sentence for anyone caught illegally possessing a fire arm. If a child reaches out and touches something that a parent has warned that child about, and that child gets disciplined the first time, what are the chances that the child will commit the same error?

The President has gone on to state in his January 16 speech that the people will be warned about a “tyrannical all out assault on liberty [to] jet up fear [and] higher ratings.” An assault on liberty? I would have to conclude that this is exactly what it is. The last time I checked there was this thing called the Second Amendment and it states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This right has been questioned over and over again. The militia part, the free state part, and the right to keep and bear arms. The bottom line is that our forefathers came up with all these rights because they lived in a time where they had to fight for freedom. This freedom that we wake up with every day was not given to us without cost. Our society today does not reflect on the lessons that were taught prior. If you don’t fight for it, it will be lost.

I read several Supreme Court cases in my hunt for some type of precedent for the types of laws that the President would like to take action on such as banning certain type of guns and the amounts of ammunition. There was one case that kind of caught my attention District of Columbia v Heller (2008). This was a case where a D.C. special police officer, who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty, was denied a registration certificate to have a handgun in his home. Here is a man of the law, who is also a citizen, who wanted to have a firearm LEGALLY. The court stated “…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.”

My argument is that it is impossible for the Federal Government to mandate what guns one can and cannot have in their homes. If one is going about the right way of obtaining these firearms, why are they being attacked? Shouldn’t the attention be focused on criminals, because the truth of the matter is that the tighter the noose becomes around the Second Amendment, it’s only Lady Liberty that suffers.

When Vice President Biden opened up for President Obama on January 16, he stated that he meet with various organizations representing different groups around the country who unanimously agreed that the laws needed to be stricter. In my YouTube hunt, I came across a video of a California Sheriff who stated that he was part of one of those groups. He stated that the current Administration was trying to denigrate the Second Amendment. He also stated that all they are pushing is “feel good legislation.” In fact, I found numerous interviews with different Sheriff Offices around the country where they are stating that if there are any restrictions on the Second Amendment, they will not enforce these Federal regulations in their state. What does that say about the Vice President’s comments? In fact an Oregon Sheriff sent a letter to the President. His letter went viral over a couple of days.

Ultimately, the exact extent of the text of the law that the Administration is pushing has yet to be released. Everyone is being wrangled into a corner using fear as a motivator. As we take a look at the country and the economic stance of each city, know that police forces are working with a minimum budget and a minimum man power. Calling 911 will not get the public the help they need in order to save their lives. A gun in the right hands is a life saved.

No matter what your stance is on this gun issue, it is your RIGHT to speak your mind and be heard. Please contact your legislature and let them know what you think on the issue.