Colorado is NOT A "Purple" State!

Perhaps this post is ill-timed, given the fact that election season is over, but I feel this has to be said...

I'm tired of people in the media describing Colorado as a “Purple” State.

I've been here my whole life, and I can tell you, with most certainty, that Colorado is neither a “Red” State nor a “Blue” State; but we're not “Purple” (meaning, our elections could go either way).

While it's true that Colorado went both times for Bush and both times for Obama, I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is not a determinate factor in our politics. Those factors barely scratch the surface of our dynamic.

Here's the truth (whether you like it or not)... Colorado is more of a Libertarian State than one that “swings.” The voters here are somewhat savvy when it comes to rationality and understanding of complicated issues.

Colorado is a very intelligent State by the numbers. As a State, we have the third highest number of College Graduates per capita in the Country. Here in Denver, libraries are easily found, as well as book stores coffee shops (like the place I choose to write all this shit... shout out to Fireside Books and Coffee, on Hampden and Delaware... stop in and have a look around... this place is GREAT). We're a very literate state!

We also have the highest concentration of breweries in the Country; which dictates our love of diversity and originality in tastes. This is also given emphasis by our eclectic collection of international cuisine.

Colorado is a haven for people who have a hard time finding where they belong. I've always been a very social person, so I wind up talking to lots of different people at the bars I frequent (like Sancho's Broken Arrow, the Doghouse, and Armida's Karaoke Bar). Somewhere between a third and a half of the people I meet have the same story... either they know someone here, or they heard this was a cool place, so they moved here and fell in love with Colorado.

The majority of these people felt “out of place” in their former home for one reason or another. As a result, Colorado (or, at least, Denver) has become the cultural equivalent of the “Island of the Misfit Toys.” We have a very large LGBT population, a very large geek population, and a SHITLOAD of stoners (which is a GOOD thing... and supposedly, Woody Harrellson, one of the “stoner kings,” is rumored to be moving here in light of Amendment 64)!

Our small towns aren't as “rural” as the small towns in most of the rest of the country. We have some VERY “liberal” small towns, like Breckenridge, Colorado City, and Monument. The “Conservative rural town” isn't as present here as it is in other parts of the country.

Colorado's politics are basically controlled by our four largest cities: Denver, Colorado Springs, Boulder, and Fort Collins. These four cities might as well be separate countries. Boulder is the most “Liberal” of the four cities, being that it has several colleges; and Colorado Springs (the City I try to avoid like the plague... it's a whole different universe) is the most “Conservative,” being the home of the Air Force Academy and the original home of “Focus on the Family” (which recently moved to Highlands Ranch; the most wealthy and conservative suburb of Denver... Mike “The Lying Douchebag” Coffman's district). Denver and Fort Collins, however, are not as “Liberal” as the rest of the country would like to believe.

People here have a strong attachment to individual rights and a “mind your own fuckin' business” attitude with regards to law making. This is why we were able to decriminalize marijuana, legalize medicinal marijuana, and eventually fully legalize marijuana. This is also why I believe that we will see marriage equality in the near future (our Statehouse already legalized “civil unions” this year).

Being mostly rational, intelligent people, we have found a balance; not between Democrats and Republicans; but between Liberals and Libertarians.

Maybe it's just the crew I run with, but the majority of the people I meet tend to fall right down the middle of this dividing line.

I'll be honest... I like it that way. The Libertarians here are much more rational than Teabaggers or “typical” Republicans. You can ACTUALLY have a REAL conversation with people, without it dissolving into “YER JUST A LIBURUL DEMUCRAT COMMIE!” People openly and freely express their opinions, and discuss them at length (and yes, even in bars... I know... that's supposed to be a “no-no”; but it works here).

I love the friendly, approachable nature of our populous. We're easy and fun to engage; and place great pride in the fact that we can have a reasonable conversation about virtually any topic; even the ones that are somewhat “touchy.”

As a result of our somewhat Libertarian populous, the determinate factor in a State-wide or National election isn't so much WHO'S running, but what they represent. However, if voters in Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins sit out an election (as we saw in 2000 and 2004), the Theocrats in Colorado Springs have a disproportionate voice to the rest of the State, which makes us LOOK “purple.” When this happens, the rest of us RATIONAL people get pissed. However, we learn from our mistakes, so when these things happen, they usually get corrected in the next election cycle.

Colorado is the greatest place on Earth! Come and see for yourself... you'll quickly learn that everything I've said is accurate and true!

To the media, I'd like to say this...

STOP calling us a “purple” state! If you want the straight beef, ASK THE PEOPLE HERE! We LIKE to engage in these conversations! We LIKE to talk about politics! Any chance we get to share in the glory of Colorado, we take it!

Consti-Tuesday: Second Amendment Remedies

Ok... I realize I left off last week in the middle of the First Amendment, but I'd like to take a different direction this week, because the Second Amendment is what's close to all our lips right now.

I really thought about neglecting the Second Amendment altogether because quite frankly, people tend to go apeshit over this one. Crazies on both sides of the debate tend to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion, and some of them have the tendency to shoot people who they see as “gun grabbers.” Let's just be clear, here... I'm neither a “gun-grabber” nor a “gun nut.”

I like guns just fine. I don't own one myself, but I'd like one; if no other reason than to blow off some steam at any soda cans who have in some way offended me or gave me funny looks as I drained them of their usefulness.

Let's just refresh our memories here with the text of the Second Amendment, so we're all on the same page... ok?

“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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The first thing I notice is something that's never discussed in public form when regarding this Amendment. Two words: “militia” and “people.” Both terms signify a plurality of people; not a single person. Think about it... the term “one man Army” has been loosely thrown around, usually in the context of Action movies, but think about how ridiculous that ACTUALLY sounds... there's really no such thing as a “one man militia.” The only person who might be given that description is the Unabomber, and is he REALLY someone that should be looked up to?

The way I read the Amendment, it sounds like the “militia” has the right to keep and bear arms, being that the militia is a plurality of persons. Furthermore, how can we say for sure that “the people” isn't a LEGAL reference, as in “The People vs. PeeWee Herman?” If “the people” is in reference to the taxpayers (as it is in the context of legal proceedings), then doesn't it sound more like there should be some kind of arms depot somewhere, where dangerous weapons are stored so that "the people" can get to them when they need them?

Lots of people like to point out that weapons technology has changed A LOT since the framing of the Constitution, so they think that the Amendment should only really reference weapons available at that time, such as muskets.

If you ask me, that's just as crazy as the people who scream “ARM EVERYONE!!!”

The people who crafted the Constitution were no idiots... they understood history. As such, they knew that until gunpowder was invented in the 9th Century, we were throwing rocks and sticks at each other, and swinging edge-weapons. They were aware that technology would continue to develop, and that we would develop new weapons and ways to kill one another.

What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was the fact that the sad folly of humanity is that humanity is self-destructive. They wanted to believe the best of humanity. Sadly, that was a mistake.

People are emotional beings. As such, our emotions tend to overflow, which causes us all to lose our minds at one time or another. Everybody (except Gandhi) has at least one thing they would kill for. Threatening that one thing may induce an emotional over-reaction, resulting in someone “exercising their Second Amendment rights” against another person, employer, business, or organization.

People have done it to protest war (ironically).

They've done it in the name of love.

They've done it in the name of God.

They've done it in the name of their country.

They've done it in the name of their race.

They've done it in the name of their gang.

They've done it in the name of money.

They've done it in the name of drugs.

They've done it in the name of territory.

They've done it in the name of justice.

They've done it in the name of their ideology.

Mostly, they've done it in the name of their own ego.

People will ALWAYS kill each other, for one reason or another. However, that doesn't mean that we should make it any easier.

That doesn't mean taking guns away from people... ok... maybe SOME people... SOME people are simply too stupid, too crazy, or too emotionally unstable to have guns.

On that note, I think that most of the people who think that the government is coming for their guns because they might have to fight AGAINST the government are probably too crazy to have them. In that respect, they're right... the government SHOULD come for their guns!

Let's not forget, people... the Amendment DOES read “well-regulated militia.” That doesn't mean that people should be able to buy any gun they want... that doesn't sound very “well-regulated” to me.

However, if someone wants an assault rifle, then they should be able to have one... as long as they keep it at the gun range where they're going to use it. Let's be honest here... not one single person... NOT ONE... NOBODY... has ever used an assault weapon to defend their home... it's just never happened. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's true. Therefore, if people want them, they should stay locked away until they're going to be used. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. If someone wants to keep a handgun around for their own protection or enjoyment, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to have hunting rifles for their intended purpose, that's JUST FINE. Shotguns? No problem!

Assault rifles, however, tend to draw personalities who want them in case they “have to” shoot lots of people at one time. Seriously... how often does that happen? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!! Therefore, if people want them, then they should have them in a place where the weapons can be monitored, so we know they're not going to be used in any more movie theaters, malls, or schools.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the “zombie apocalypse” is coming. If that's something that you fear, you probably fall into the “crazy” heading, as well. It's one thing to joke about it, but another thing to BELIEVE it.

To change directions a little bit, it occurs to me that the same people who complain that “the criminals will always get guns” are the same people who promote cutting law enforcement budgets (just like they want to cut EVERY budget). Let me make this CRYSTAL clear here... if you don't want the criminals to have guns, you can't keep slashing the budget for law enforcement. You say you don't want the criminals to have guns, and yet, you put a stranglehold on finances so that the criminals have MORE availability to get guns... you can't have it both ways, idiots... if you don't want the criminals to have guns, you want MORE cops on the street... not LESS!

Seriously... the hypocrisy runs deep in some people.

I also feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out the solid research that radio host and author, Thom Hartmann, has done with regards to the Second Amendment. His openly-displayed research shows that the Second Amendment was written, in part, to allow “militias” in Virginia to hunt down escaped slaves. (A summation of Thom's work can be found here: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery?paging=off)

We all know that this represents what may very well be the ugliest era in American history. Slavery is a big, fat, undeniable scar on our record. As such, when we discuss issues that have at least some root in slavery, we should consider the relevance of the fact that the Second Amendment was put in place partly to keep a race of people “in their place.”

I think that certain acknowledgements need to be made in the Congressional record. Let's be honest... part of the Second Amendment WAS written with purely malicious intent. If we're not honest about the historical intent, then it's just like denying it's there.

It's no different than people who think that the Civil War was actually about “Northern Aggression.” They deny that slavery was even an issue in the war, and that's no different than condoning slavery NOW!

The Second Amendment is an open wound in American discourse. We'll never make any progress in the “well regulated” part of the Amendment until the psychos on BOTH sides of the issue SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the “adults” in the room talk. The problem is, both sides have become so emotional and reactionary that both sides are fast approaching the point at which they would embrace the primitive inhuman condition of humanity: killing in the name of killing.

Consti-Tuesday: "Freedom" of Religion

Here we are... our second installment of Consti-Tuesday. Having covered the Preamble last week, it only seems appropriate to continue on to the First Amendment. Sure, I could do the Articles of the Constitution, but there's just too much there to decide where to go first, so I think I'll come back to those issues as they present themselves to be necessary in later debates... cool?

So... the First Amendment...

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Let's be honest, here... there's a lot packed into it, and quite frankly, that's a lot to conquer in one post, so I'll break it down to several pieces in order to keep it more readable.

We'll start today, with the first two little sections. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”)

Why is it that the FIRST TEN WORDS are so hard for so many people to acknowledge?

“Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

For some reason, people of one particular religious leaning fail on every level to realize that this means THEIR RELIGION can't be used to affect law! That's where our bigoted laws preventing the marriage of loving couples comes from. “Certain people” think that because THEIR religion says that gays are lesser human beings at best (and SUB-HUMANS in some circles), that means THEIR religious beliefs should be shoved on everybody else. These are the same people who use THEIR religion to claim that Abortion should be illegal.

Here's some news, though... YOUR religion doesn't speak for EVERYONE! That's why the Amendment says YOUR religion can't become law, and neither can ANYBODY ELSE'S! (yes, that means that your fears of "Shariah Law" taking over the courts... I'm looking at YOU, Oklahoma... *remember?... are founded in absolute ignorance of the Constitution)

Those are also the people who like to say that America is a “Christian nation”... no... it's not... “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”... remember?

They also use THEIR religion to say that SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACTS can't be used when educating our country's children! Just because YOUR book says something contrary to what FACTS have determined, doesn't make it true! I mean, would you be as apt to have students taught that the world is actually on the back of a turtle, floating through the Universe, like OTHER PEOPLE'S beliefs state? I doubt it... but THEIR book says so, so what's to say THEIR theory isn't just as relevant as your's? Don't like THEIR religion being shoved down YOUR throat? Tough shit! That's EXACTLY what you've been doing to everyone else!

… such arrogance is destructive and belligerent...

Let's look at the second half of the first part now, shall we?

“... nor abridging the free exercise thereof...”

... huh...

... nobody can tell me how to worship...

… unless I use marijuana in my religious practice, as is done in virtually every corner of the world, by people of several different faiths...

Let's be honest... some people CAN'T celebrate their religion lawfully because a certain aspect of their faith has been made illegal in one way or another.

From that perspective, let's consider the job market...

Even companies who claim to be “Equal Opportunity Employers” will discriminate against people who use marijuana for spiritual purposes... If you have THC in your pee, you can't work there... the fact that it's part of your RELIGION doesn't make a lick of difference!

… and, of course, if someone claims religious freedom in this respect, they must be lying just to get high, right? Well, who the fuck are YOU to tell ANYBODY that their belief is illegitimate just because it's not how YOU worship???

Allow me to delve into my own belief a little bit, here...

I believe that God is the absolute intangible personification of purity. Given that fact, bringing thoughts and feelings of “corruption” (anger, hate, arrogance, fear, etc.) into a conversation with God is an abomination akin to blasphemy. Marijuana is a holy herb that drives away “corrupt” thoughts and feelings, so as to maintain the purity of God.

In most of the country (with the current exception of Washington and Colorado), if I'm caught with marijuana, I would go to jail for violating the law, despite my own personal beliefs. MY religion doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, because I don't purport to follow a "major" religion.

… doesn't that sound like they're “abridging the free exercise” of my beliefs? I'd sure as fuck say so...

It's fairly rare that BOTH parts of the first part of the First Amendment are observed congruently. People see one part, but not the other. When will people start looking at EVERYTHING, instead of just the shit they like?

I call this “Constitutional Cafeterianism,” meaning they treat the Constitution like a cafeteria... they only see what they want and ignore the rest... and, of course, if it's there, it must be there JUST FOR THEM!  You don't have to share anything at a cafeteria... if you want to try something, you just get some of it.  So, of course, what you have is YOUR'S and YOUR'S alone!  This is something we HAVE to stop doing! It's arrogant, ignorant, and elitist; and it's a philosophy that we don't need ANYWHERE near our laws!

What it all boils down to is, everyone worships differently. One group's beliefs shouldn't be EVERYONE'S law, and that's EXACTLY what this part of the Amendment says! Furthermore, just because you don't agree with the way someone practices their faith, that doesn't mean they're wrong for practicing it their way! The Amendment says that, too!

The two go together FOR A REASON! You can't have one without the other! You can't pick and choose! Plain and fuckin' simple!

Time to get back on track, America... why can't we all just... get along? Why can't we all just... let people worship the way they please and keep our religion to ourselves?

Consider this... in Article VI, sec. 3, it further enforces the First Amendment by stating “... no religious test shall ever be required as qualification for any office or public trust under the United States...”

Get it? YOUR religion doesn't make you qualified for ANY office! Therefore, even MENTIONING your religion on the campaign trail is a VIOLATION of the Constitution! If your religion doesn't make you qualified for your office, it can't be used to justify the laws you make, either!

On top of that, consider this... if you think that your Christian beliefs are something that should be shoved on everyone, look at Matthew 6:5...

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” (http://bible.cc/matthew/6-5.htm King James version)

How do you like that? Since you made SUCH a big deal of pushing YOUR shit on other people, you won't be going to Heaven... what's more, EVEN JESUS THINKS YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!

Don't like it? Sorry... it's YOUR Bible... just like the Constitution, if you don't like it, tough shit! You can't pick and choose. It's right there in Jesus' own words... sorry to point that out, but your delusion called for it.

See? The Constitution isn't the ONLY document that tells you to keep it to yourself... your own holy book says so, too! I don't give a fuck if it's inconvenient to your political motivations... blow me!

… and for those of the people who think that what I'm saying is wrong just because it's coming from a “Non-Christian”... for those of the people who think that I should be blocked or banned for speaking my mind, allow me to introduce you to the next part of the Constitution, which I will get to at a later time...

“... nor abridging the […] freedom of speech...”

I can say it as loud as I want, in any way I want, with any tone that I want, and if you don't like it, tough shit!

Ode to the Working Man

A toast and a suggestion...

Here's to the working man, and all the jobs we do.
Here's to the shit they put us through.
Shitty bosses,
Shitty wages,
Shitty pay,
Shitty coffee.

Here's to the things we've given up.
Here's to the things they've taken from us.
Our lives,
Our raises,
Our benefits,
Our time.

Here's to the way things CAN be!
Here's to the power we CAN'T see!
Our pride,
Our voices,
Our numbers,
Our evidence, implied!

The time has come,
My friends,
To get things done,
my friends.

Our bosses have taken
What WE were due!
And things get WORSE
Every day or two!

Twice the work
For half the pay;
Chided and berated
Nearly every day.

Bullied
And floored.
Demeaned
And ignored.

"I'm sick!"
"I'm tired!"
"I'm disgusted!"
"YOU'RE FIRED!"

We won't give up
One inch more!
I think it's time
We settled the score!

There are more of us
Than there are of them!
Those worthless douchebags'
Fuckin' heads will spin!

Let's stand up
For what we KNOW is right
And tell those shitwaffles
"WE'VE COME TO FIGHT!!!"

-Brode

Consti-Tuesday: The Preamble

When telling a story, where should a person start? Obviously, they should start at the beginning, and I think that's what makes sense to do here, as well.

When we discuss the Constitution, we often forget about the Preamble; despite the fact that it's the VERY FIRST PART of the Constitution! If you ask me, we should consider the Preamble more often when discussing Amendments to the Constitution, or even the Constitution as a whole. Why? Well, the Preamble is intended to set up the reason and the need for the Constitution. It lays the most basic groundwork for the document that rules our land. The text reads as follows:

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What does all that mean? Let's see here... this says that the Constitution is intended to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”...

… let's break that down, piece by piece, shall we?

1. Establish justice

This means that it's intended to create laws that allow people access to the courts, and for what reasons they may use the courts.

2. Insure domestic tranquility

This means that the laws are meant to keep us all living together in an orderly, peaceful manner with each other.

3. Provide for the common defense

This means that the Constitution sets up the guidelines for the use of our military and law enforcement.

4. Promote the general welfare

This means that it's meant to allow ALL people (even the poorest of us) the means to live their lives reasonably.

5. Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

This means that the Constitution is intended to dictate to ourselves and the world that we are a free people, and the Constitution is supposed to keep us all from looking like assholes to everyone else.

So, if those are the purposes for the Constitution, then how does the rest fit into this? How do the Amendments address the prescriptions of the Preamble? With ANY proposed law, the VERY FIRST FUCKIN' QUESTION that should be asked is, “How does this relate to the five pillars of the Preamble?” The problem is, nobody asks that fuckin' question anymore. As a result, there are laws against gay marriage, the use of marijuana, and a shitload of other things, despite the fact that they take “liberty” AWAY from SOME people (which goes against the fifth pillar), while saying that other people are just fuckin' fine.

Furthermore, I would argue that bans on gay marriage are in direct opposition to the first, fourth, and fifth pillars, because if some people have rights that others don't, purely because of the way that they're born, then the public tranquility is NOT preserved, only the welfare of SOME is promoted, and the laws don't apply to everyone equally, because the people those laws discriminate against don't have the same ability to lead an enriching life as the rest of us do. Ergo, as a result of the inequality, the domestic populous is certainly less than tranquil.

For that matter, the fourth pillar is widely ignored! Look at the number of starving children in the United States... look at the number of people who can't afford health care... look at the number of people who are forced to work until the day they die... look at the number of people who are denied the education that they need, because they can't afford it... look at the number of people and families who live on the street because the banks fucked them... look at the number of people who are denied a wage that allows them to simply survive...

These numbers are growing, dictating the fact that the “general welfare” is NOT being promoted! The only people who are truly doin' fine right now are the RICH!!!

Health care, education, food, and shelter should be a RIGHT! Every human being should have the chance to live reasonably, but for some reason, we only really seem to care about how the wealthiest of us are doing; not the poorest, where we SHOULD be focusing our energy.

The fact that our “general welfare” is NOT promoted, while our “common defense” is OVER promoted is a big part of the reason so much of the world looks at us like arrogant, ignorant, dumbass, inbred assholes!

Our military has become our Government's strap-on dildo. We slap it on and fuck every brown person we can find that's not in America, and then we wonder why the fuck there's so much anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East, and why so much of Europe finds us distasteful and vulgar.

Seriously... when was the last time we TRULY saw a time of lasting peace? When was the last time we weren't at war with one country or another? When was the last time we knew we could turn on the news without hearing about fallen soldiers? I want THOSE days back. I'm TIRED of war. I'm TIRED of wasting money and lives.

The problem is, we've pissed A LOT of people off... so many, in fact, that we've to the point where even if we DO bring all our troops home, there are so many people pissed off at us, that we STILL won't see an end to the acts of attempted retribution in the parts of the world where we've anally invaded the people and their lives with our floppy, rubber, fake dick.  End result: Our "common defense" stepped on our "posterity."

As for the “justice,” where is it? Justice has become a luxury. Only the wealthy can afford access to the courts. If one of US wanted to pursue justice against a corporation, we would get buried by a TEAM of lawyers; given that we lack the resources to counter their representation.

Believe me, I've been fucked by a SHITLOAD of employers! I'd LOVE to have my chance to make them pay for the things they've done to me; as would millions more in the working populous of the United States. Employers should have to answer for the way they treat their employees. The fact that we don't have the legal access to hold our employees accountable for their abuses only means that the abuses will get worse and more widespread. If nobody is telling them, “YOU CAN'T DO THAT,” then where's their incentive to change and treat people more like people, and less like disposable peons?

Obviously, if the poor don't have the same access to the courts as the rich, then the first pillar of the Preamble is not firmly upheld. Furthermore, if the rich can access the courts more easily than the poor, then the fifth pillar is ignored, as well!

If a law doesn't stand up to the five pillars of the Preamble, then simply put, it shouldn't be a fuckin' law! It's that fuckin' simple!

The Preamble is intended to establish the fact that rights and laws should apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY, and that our laws should be founded in sane, rational reasoning. Obviously, this is not something that's on the minds of the assholes who make most of our laws.

From that perspective, why aren't there lawsuits relating to the Preamble? Almost every other Amendment has been challenged in one way or another over the years. Numerous challenges to the First, Second, Fourth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Eighteenth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-Fourth Amendments have been issued over the years; but never... NOT ONCE... has there ever been a challenge to the Preamble... isn't that weird?

Sure, the majority of the laws on the books are well-intended, but not ALL of them. Some of them are purely based in bigotry, hate, and discrimination. Unfortunately, that's been a constant theme in the history of our nation. We've used our laws to discriminate against Blacks, Witches, Atheists, Hispanics, people who use marijuana for spiritual purposes, people with disabilities, Muslims, people who aren't Christians, poor people, and just about everyone else who isn't rich, white, or Christian; mainly because too many people who get elected believe that ONLY their race and religion is meant to be protected, because America is a “Christian nation”; and if people are poor, it's because they've done something to deserve it (despite the fact that America, to these people, is a “Christian nation”).

To sum up, the Preamble is intended to define the reasons for the Constitution, and the ways that our laws are supposed to apply to the Constitution. The fact that so many of them don't, I believe, is abysmal. But for some reason, nobody challenges our laws on the grounds of the Preamble.

Something needs to be done to fix these things, and I believe that all starts with education. The more of us understand the Constitution, the more of us know to speak up when shit gets fucked up! We know WHY we're mad, and WHY certain laws have no place in society, so we can attack them on the lack of pertinence to our nation's greatest document!

This is how we take our country back; we build an understanding of how things are SUPPOSED to work, and argue our position based on rock-solid reasoning and Constitutional knowledge! They can't oppress us if we know what the fuck we're all talking about, right?

… and, of course, understanding the rest means understanding the platform on which it's built.

A Hero We've Seen and a Hero We Need

Today, I would like to take some time to honor one of the people I hold in the HIGHEST regard... a man whose words and actions have greatly shaped my life... a man who helped to permanently redefine both the Democratic and Republican Party... a man whose philosophies have helped shape the world as we know it... a Martyr of Civil Rights... a man whose selflessness could only be mirrored by his courage...

I'm speaking, of course, about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Without him, we would be facing a vastly different America. 

In a setting riddled with blatant racism, denial of Constitutionally granted rights, obscene abuses of power, and a nation opening a rift that has yet to be mended, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had the titanium balls to stand up to an entire nation that had been corrupted by dozens of generations of purely malicious hate (much of which still exists today; more in the South, of course, than the rest of the country; although elements are visible in every State, City, Town, Province, District, Village, Community... basically any collection of two people or more in one place).

Images of fire hoses being turned on protesters,

"Whites Only" signs,

 public beatings, 

and cross burnings 

have been permanently emblazoned in my mind.  The blatancy of the pure vitriol towards people who are guilty of nothing more than having a different genetic makeup is something that I personally find abhorrent, and something that shall never be forgotten.

... just like the way that gays and immigrants are treated today...

... today's "faggots" and "illegals" are yesterday's "niggers"...

Think about it... the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" forced the bigots to focus their hate in other areas, so they went in two different directions, and then, eventually, a third; first, the gays and the immigrants (which gave them "license" to hate ANYBODY that's not white, as long as they "talk funny"); and then, of course, the Muslims (after 9-11).

I'm focusing on the gays and immigrants because there are widespread, specifically focused laws on those groups of people and their actions.  (Although, two states have also ignorantly banned Shariah Law from being practiced in their courts, despite the fact that this is a DIRECT violation of the First Amendment.  The bigots are still trying to find ways to discriminate against Muslims... even though it's completely natural to them, it's still a new group to hate, and that kind of focused hate takes time to organize.)

There used to be laws that African Americans couldn't marry or adopt children... just like the gays, now...

There used to be restricted rights pertaining to Power of Attorney and legal status on African Americans... just like the gays and immigrants, now...

Many of the racial stereotypes once held by African Americans now belong to certain groups of immigrants (lazy, unintelligent, loud, etc)... and it's founded in the same ignorance of cultural differences.

… it would appear that we've gone from the frying pan into another frying pan...

And these obvious signs of blatant hate, as with the time of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are coming from the same places... purely bigoted "Christian" organizations (Christians who celebrate Hitler's version of the Bible, like the Westboro Baptist Church), the KKK, and everyone else the the Republican Party picked up during Nixon's run for office when they realized that they couldn't win unless they picked up the ignorant, bigoted "Dixiecrats". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other civil rights leaders in the 1960's caused a rift in the Democratic Party on the grounds of civil rights for African Americans, alienating the Southern Dixiecrats.

The Dixiecrats found themselves as a people without a party. Then, in the 1970's, along came Richard Nixon. His election campaign wasn't going so well and he knew he couldn't win unless he expanded his base. So, you know what that asshole did? He decided that the ignorant Southern racists could be easily controlled and converted, knowing that stupid people are easily controlled. So he started spreading racist “dog whistles” that were aimed at converting the moronic bigots over to his side.

As a result, this racism was allowed to fester and spread throughout the 80's and 90's. It was fed with the “Willie Horton” advertisement during George H.W. Bush's 1988 election and Ronald Reagan's references to “Welfare Queens”. African Americans have been demonized by the Republicans in one way or another in LITERALLY every election season by one Republican candidate or another.

This is something we've seen especially predominant during Barack Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 by the “Birthers,” numerous rants referring to our President as a “nigger” or as a witch doctor during the health care debate, or by EVERY SINGLE HOST on the Foxaganda network in one way or another, or Rush Limbaugh and all the other right-wing radio hosts virtually daily.

The racist references found on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter FAR eclipse the suggestive “dog whistles” found on the radio or television. These are things that I don't think people would say out loud on the street, but the internet allows people to remain masked while they spew their hate, rather than speak openly, and it grants them an audience, which allows them to branch out and spread their corrupting, factless bullshit.

Like I said before, Dr. King's words and actions shed a light of shame on racism, which the majority of us took as a cue to change our thinking. However, some of us took that shame and re-directed it at other groups; specifically the immigrants and the gays (as I pointed out before). I guess, for some people, hate is just something that's hard to eradicate once it's been sown at the genetic level. But that doesn't mean that it can't be eliminated; we just need another man like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to cast the same light on intolerance.



Who will pick up that mantle? Many have tried... Harvey Milk... Cesar Chavez... Mario Solis Marich... Dan Savage... Al Sharpton... Jesse Jackson... George Takei... Barney Frank... Jared Polis...



What it all boils down to is, we need a hero. We need someone who has the charisma, the balls, and the dedication to step up and make a difference, just like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did. We need someone to tear down the walls of intolerance that have been built by dozens of generations of bigotry. We need someone who can speak truth to power, with a history of victimization and prejudice to back up their words and actions.

So, who should it be? Who could pick up the mantle? Where is this person going to come from? When?

This is the part where I attempt to inspire you. This is the part where I try to instill a feeling of power within you. This is the part where I tell you to speak your mind; say it LOUD! Say it CLEAR! Say it with PRIDE!  Say it with CONVICTION!

I believe that we ALL have the power to be “that person”... I believe that we ALL have the potential to change the world... I believe that we all have some understanding of injustice on one stage or another, and we should speak to the injustice that we know... therefore, I believe that ANYONE can be “the one.”

YOUR voice is important! YOUR experience is invaluable! YOUR voice is needed!

YOU

have a voice!!!

Use it to

SHOUT!!!