My thoughts on Akin and Rape.

Unless you have been socially disconnected (which if you are reading this is a very unlikely scenario), you have heard of Republican Todd Akin's comments on Rape. If you have not, then you should first hear them here.



He has publicly apologized for his statement, but obviously he believes them. He co-sponsored a bill with Rep. Paul Ryan that would make abortion (in ANY circumstance) and several forms of birth control pills illegal. This "personhood" bill would give fetuses full status as human beings under the fourteenth amendment of the United States.



Democrats and other Republicans have asked Akin to step down (including Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney), which he refuses to do. I do not know if he can be forced to step down, but many Republicans are telling him he should.



Of course he should. You do not make a statement like that, whether you believe it or not, and after the MASSIVE public backlash stay in the race. You are just begging to lose the race. He stays in for one reason, and one reason only, pride.



But, what about his statement? Is he right? Is he wrong? Well, the vast majority says he is wrong. Of course he is. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that his statement is even remotely true. In fact, quite the opposite. He believes it, but that isn't the point.



Why is he even calling out different types of rape? Rape is rape. Period. End of Story. If a woman says no and a man forces himself on her, it is Rape. Nothing else in this situation matters. This is, I think, one of the most contentious parts of his statement. The GOP is trying to distinguish "forcable" rape from other types because it makes it easier for them to pass laws outlawing abortion.



This brings us to the real meat of the argument. Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. I stand in a unique position in this argument, and I know I am not alone, but few tend to think of the middle ground. Pro-Life people, like the GOP, are literally trying to ram their opinions down your throat. The far left Pro-Choice are saying that you can do what you want. It is YOUR body.



I am Pro-Choice. That said, I am very deeply against abortion, and consider it reprehensible. Now many will look at that statement and say, "You can't be both."



Uhhh, yes I can. I am against abortion. I think it is reprehensible, and wrong. That said, it is not my decision. It is not my place to make that decision for you, or for anyone else. I am against it, but it is your body. It is YOUR CHOICE. I think the real crime is when your freedoms, rights and liberties are taken away from you.



Pro-Lifers will argue about the child's (or fetus's) rights, but this leads to a whole new set of problems. The thing with many Pro-Lifers, is that they are so concerned with the life of the unborn child, they tend to forget about everyone else's life. Especially in the case of a victim of rape, you have a woman (or girl, as some cases of rape are with underage females) who did not plan for a child, did not want a child, and this situation was forced on her. How can you tell this person that you must now raise a child you did not want because some guy decided he wanted to get funky?



On top of that, I have dicovered that in 31 States in the United states, the father in this situation (I will call him the 'rapist') can actually bring the mother (I will call her the 'victim') to court to gain custody or visitation rights to the child. REALLY? Now, not only are you telling this victim that she must have the child, but you are also tying her to the rapist for 18 years, where she must allow the rapist access to the child she never wanted in the first place. Forcing her to associate with the man who forced himself on her against her wishes. How is this in any way right? How is this in any way Just?



There is only one answer to that question: It is NOT.

The Legalization of Mara Jew Wanna

Ahhh, the legalisation of Marijuana (yes, I do know how to properly pronounce the name). After seeing a post on facebook by Cheech and Chong calling for the legalisation of marijuana, I thought about why it should, or should not and considered the ramifications of the legalisation.

I'll start with my conclusion on legalising Marijuana: I think that it is not the right choice. Now for my reasoning.

While many see this as an issue on the negative effects of marijuana, the reality is there is no concrete evidence that smoking pot is any more dangerous than drinking or smoking cigarettes. In fact, it is the opposite - many studies have shown that smoking pot is actually safer than either of the other substances. So why do I say no?

The reasons are threefold:

Legalising marijuana will create several companies that will produce the substance, which is to be sold in stores. These companies may employ several thousand people, but compared to the tens of thousands of marijuana pushers out there, this will actually result in a net loss of income for many. These pushers will, with the loss of revenue due to the fact that you can get pot at your local 7-11 will be forced to push other, more deadly substances to remain solvent. This will increase crime and death (both through crime and through overdosing on these more dangerous substances).

Marijuana will also become heavily regulated. The initial pot that stores will sell will most likely be of poor quality, and while the free market may force quality upgrade, with all things corporate, quantity will supersede quality. In addition, the government will most likely tax the heck out of it, causing pot to raise in price. In addition, it will cause unforeseen effects, as "being high" will be treated as "being drunk" and enforcement will be writing a lot of citations for this.

Lastly, it will signal a large cultural change that is too dynamic to happen at once. There will be protests from anti-drug organisations and supporters and it will certainly change the political landscape.

However, all of these factors arguing against the legalisation of pot, also argue for the decriminalisation of possession of small amounts. The US War on Drugs isn't really serving anyone when they persecute people for having a joint in their pocket. That person now has a permanent criminal record, and his future is now in jeopardy. This culminates in a type of class warfare, where "pot smokers" are relegated to lower classes because of the difficulty in finding work with a criminal record, and thus breeding more poverty and crime.

So, while I argue that the legalisation of marijuana is a poor idea, I do support the decriminalisation of marijuana. The amount of money local law enforcement can make through citations will help support better policing, which can then be used to find and catch the pushers of the more dangerous drugs, and it will prevent many promising people from getting permanent records that will lead to their exclusion from employment. It will still hold drug pushers and growers criminally responsible, and it will not really change the political landscape as much.

In addition, doing so will lower crime rates and reduce prison populations. It will keep relatively innocent people out of the crime/jail cycle, and reduce overall crime. Maybe not by a massive amount, but it will be significant enough to be noticed. I don't think we are ready to make legal what is illegal, we need to do this in small steps, and look foreward to see where we need to stop. Legalising pot may not be the right idea, but what we are doing now isn't the right idea either.

Cyber-Security Act Stopped?

The new Cyber-Security bill has been rejected due to a lack of votes. Today, the US Senate failed to get the required 60 votes to bring the new Cyber-Security bill it needed for cloture.

So what does this mean? Well first of all, it is a win for the internet. For a while, anyways, we have managed to stave off a poor piece of unneeded legislation, but complacency is the enemy of progress. If we think the war is over, we have already lost. Parts of this legislation will undoubtedly show up again, either as their own pieces of legislation, or as parts of other bills. It has been done before as SOPA/PIPA pieces were being tried as their own bills.

The Internet Defense League has arisen from the ashes of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and this bill. It is a collection of Internet-savvy companies and people who want to see the internet kept the open and free thing that it is (yes, I am a member). It includes companies such as Cheezburger, Techdirt, Mozilla, Open Media.ca, Imgur, Reddit, and Grooveshark.

Individuals can join as well as companies (this is how I joined).

How is this going to help. By creating pressure on lawmakers, we can work together to keep the internet free, and can even be a force of good, shaming those who would resort to 'cyber-security attacks'. People have a right to be free, and not to be spied on by our governments.

Canada has a harder climb than the US does, with the C-30 bill, but we can still put much pressure on our government (Stephen Harper at the time of this writing) to turn down our own Cyber-Security bill in Canada.

That, and politicians need to show that new legislation is needed, and that our current laws don't already cover things (which they do). We don't NEED the cyber-security legislation. It is just another excuse to take away our rights and freedoms. In Canada, we are guaranteed our right to Privacy by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Law Enforcement officials need a court-issued warrant to be allowed to circumvent that. There is NO reason the police should have the ability to circumvent that without a court order. If there is suspicion of wrong-doing, then a warrant can be issued. If there isn't, then the police have NO RIGHT to invade our privacy.

These legislations are not for the children, or for business. It is slow steps taking us from a democratic society based on freedom and justice to an Orwellian nightmare where we live under the constant supervision of "Big Brother". If things continue the way they are, 1984 will become a reality, not just fiction.

Can someone explain to me how that is "for the children?"