quiteoutburst's Xanga

The Fight for American Values

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:16:47 GMT

While many seem to be jumping off the Bush bandwagon as it hurls down the proverbial slippery slop, others are jumping on along with the other willful blind that can’t or won’t see the clash they are about the have with TRUE American values. This past Tuesday (Nov. 8^th) two events, which show the striking difference between those who say they stand for American values and those who know what true American values are, transpired in two distinct parts of the country. In a small sleepy town of southern Pennsylvania voters rebuked the attempts of a school board to take back American school children to a pre-1925 era mentality, when teaching evolution was a crime. On the other hand, in Kansas, those who profess patriotism out of every pore took back American school children to that pre-1925 era mentality, telling voters in their state that they know best.

Just a few years ago the Kansas state Board of Education went against the recommendations of a 27-member state committee of scientists that spent a year drafting standards for Kansas public school science classes.[1] The scientists (I stress SCIENTISTS) on the state committee proposed the teaching of the theory of evolution in biology classes, as it is the wildly accepted theory of how we came to be. The school board, I’m sure in its more infinite wisdom which is way beyond me, decided to override the committee of SCIENTISTS. The school board decided to completely delete the probable fact that one species can evolve into another, known as macro-evolution. There intention was to give teachers more freedom deciding what to teach regarding the origins of life.¹ In other words, when it came to the origins of life teachers could teach intelligent design, the theory that life is so complex that a higher power had to have created the universe. Not long after this decision several of the school board members were ousted by voters and replaced by a more liberal school board who overturned the ruling and reinstated the theory of evolution into school books. Tuesday, a new more conservative board which took hold in 2004 went further by not only undermining the theory of evolution but also redefined science itself by allowing supernatural explanations.[2] I guess these school board members know better then the whole electorate in Kansas.

Miles away in Pennsylvania, a somewhat more liberal state then Kansas, another school board decided to take similar steps. The board required a statement to be made at the start of the “semester stating there were “gaps” in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading the textbook “Of Pandas and People,” available in the high school library.”[3]

While I would be the last to hinder any move to promote the critical analysis of any subject by a student, a school should not point students to, as Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller described it, “a collection of half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods that attempts to misrepresent biology and mislead students as to the scientific status of evolutionary biology.”[4] Professor Kenneth Miller also points out that his criticisms are not unique. There have been several reviews describing the books misrepresentations in several noteworthy publications including Scientific American.

Well this Tuesday all eight members of the Pennsylvania school board who were up for reelection were ousted by voters for introducing politically motivated dishonesty into school as supposed hard facts.

Indeed this is the true difference between Americans today. Republicans have use McCarthyistic like tactics to destroy what are true American values while wrapping themselves in the American flag. Slowly true Americans are starting to see the clandestine agenda which Republicans have been pushing. For example while Republicans profess family values, they are trying to pass their fiscal year 2006 budget which would cut Medicaid, cut food stamps, and cut student loans, all to fund a war which everyone was misled and bullied into supporting. Are these true American values? While Republicans profess liberty and freedom for all, we are given treats against self determination and privacy rights, and the Patriot Act, which cuts off free speech, and endangers civil rights and the Constitution. Are these true American values?

It would be obvious to those who know and understand how this nation came to throw off its shackles of the old world that Republicans are professing anything but true American values. What are these true American values? It’s an understanding that the Constitution has set up a structure which relays on its citizenry to work open, transparent institutions with limits. Those limits, while at times grey, are simple; the rights of the majority can never trample those of the minority.[5] Since the Bush “election” it seems Republicans have willfully forgotten this most important American value. A frightening example was seen on June 10^th during a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee on civil rights and civil liberties abuses resulting from the Patriot Act. The committee was taking testimony from groups like Amnesty International, when the Republican chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, cut the microphones off, closed the hearing down and walked off.[6] [7] Why would a Republican shut down a hearing on civil rights? It can only be from a lack of respect or a total misunderstanding of the same thing they so are ‘trying’ to ‘protect,’ American values.

While this administration, and several of its supporters, may not have respect for true American values, the average person across America does. He/she understands it, and does not underestimate the true importance of it in our everyday life. California State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he received the message from voters “loud and clear.”[8] He hopefully now understands that he can not subvert institutions in an attempt at a power grab, and try to silence his opponents. I’m sure the ousted school board members in Pennsylvania now understand this message as well. However, there are still some out there like those in Kansas who hate what America stands for. They, like Pat Robertson who use their own, singular version of god to bully those who do not agree with them, are the enemies of what are true American values.[9] American values are the rights to self determination, the right to think freely and with objective facts, the right to choose. American values are gay marriage, truth in government, true and equal representation, and a free vote for all. American values are making sure a person’s rights come before that of a corporation, protecting our environment, and standing up for the poor. These are all things this Republican administration and its supporters have stood against, and they have trampled on our true American values for two long. However, their time is up.

[1] http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/printer.pat,local/3773cac3.825,.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09kansas.html?pagewanted=print

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html?pagewanted=print

[4] http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html

[5] ideas developed from comments made by Justice Stephen G. Breyer at a symposium on the international rule of law hosted by the ABA on 11/10/05

[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=838557&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[7] Video of the hearing can be found at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl20_schultz/judgavelledoff.html along with a press release from committee member Rep. Debbie Schultz

[8] http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13839729p-14679889c.html

[9] http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Its Election Time Again

Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:03:17 GMT

Its election time in California! Once again! It feels just like yesterday that we were recalling Gray Davis, and now here we are again with yet another special statewide election. Only the 15^th in California history since 1911, this special election contains several interesting propositions which have stirred up substantial rhetoric from every corner. And now here is my own.

NO on Proposition 73

This propositions history can be dated back all the way to 1953 when the state legislature passed a law which gave minors the right to receive the same type of medical care for pregnancies that an adult could receive without parental consent. Several other so-called limited medical emancipation statutes have been passed since then: from allowing minors to receive treatment for a sexually transmitted disease in 1968 to allowing a minor child to receive drug or alcohol treatment in 1977. The logic behind these medical emancipation statutes is simple; the health of the minor and the community is sometimes better served by providing medical treatment then obtaining parental consent. Not to mention that many times acquiring this consent might be met not only with fear and reluctances from the minor but with opposition from the parent for illogical reasons or even worse be met with violence.

It is important to point out that at the time of this bill abortions, other then to preserve life, were outlawed in California. It wasn’t until the passage of the Therapeutic Abortion Act in 1967 that the usages of abortions were lawful when the pregnancy was as a result of rape or incest, and then even further expanded.

The legislature then in 1987 prohibited doctors from performing and abortion on a minor without the consent of a parent or a court. This statue however was never applied as it was tied up in court to determine its validity. It wasn’t until 1997 in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, that the California Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts and deemed the statue violated the privacy rights set out in the state Constitution.

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Cal Const, Art I § 1

So what do you do when the Constitution doesn’t agree with you? You change it! Proposition 73 would amend the Constitution requiring a 48 hour waiting period for parents to be notified before performing an abortion on a minor. Note that consent is not required, just notification either by a personal written notification or mailed notification. If the notification is sent via mail the waiting period is in effect that of 96 hours since notice isn’t presumed to have been delivered until noon of the second day after written notice was sent.

Proposition 73 states that the notification requirement may be circumvented by a minor if they file a petition with juvenile court, where they will be forced to appear before a judge who can grant a waiver only on the ground of “clear and convincing evidence, that notice of a parent . . . is not in the best interest of the unemancipated minor…based on evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by parent . . . [or] . . . the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decided whether to have an abortion . . .”

Most adults have difficulties trying to manage the often intimidating world of law, now I could only envision how a vulnerable minor would do in this type of circumstance.

Yes, this proposition would continue to provide an option for minors who would need them. However, are these options enough for those most vulnerable? The sad fact is that there are parents among us who fail at the jobs of being good parents. There are parents who are physically/sexually/mentally abusive, and those who fail to set aside their ideological convictions to deal with a real world situation. It would be great if very pregnant teenager could seek the advice and support of their parents. However if this communication existed to begin with, the chances that the teenager would have been impregnated to being with would have been less. And we can not legislate this communication which just doesn’t exist in many families.

When all else fails the best we can ask for is that a child be in the hands of a caring medical professional, where her physical well being will be taken care of. Yet there is some among us who want to send our children back to the days of back ally, coat hanger abortions, and consider themselves a better person for it.

NO on Proposition 74 -77

While normally voting blankly, or as a form of revenge runs against very grain in my body I have been so infuriated by Schwarzenegger’s veto of AB 849 the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act authored by Mark Leno, that I am left with no choice. The bill would provide that marriage is a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons,” instead of just a men or a woman.

Schwarzenegger has stated that he considers no undertaking to be nobler than the cause of civil rights. He says that gay couples are entitled to the full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. Yet he was unwilling to stand up for those beliefs when it came down to the eleventh hour. He shamefully cited Proposition 22 which prevented California for recognizing same-sex marriages. Of course Proposition 22 has already been ruled unconstitutional. While appeals do still await in a higher court, if Schwarzenegger was anything near what he professes to be he would have not delayed justice. If he can not take a stand for equal rights, I fear what he could do with any more political power. Therefore, while under any other circumstance I might have voted in favor of some of these propositions, instead I will veto all of them.

NO on 78 and YES on 79

The pharmaceutical industry has already spent over 80 million dollars, according to a Nov. 2^nd article in the San Francisco Chronicle, making the battle over these two opposing propositions the most costly in California history. Each proposition claims that with it more people will be able to afford the many times costly medication which we have come to depend on for acute and chronic illnesses. Each proposition ‘meets’ this claim in sharply different manners, so which one will do the best job?

Proposition 78 relies on rebates to be provided at the pharmacy and funded by the state. The drug manufactures would then rebate the state. The end price of the drug would be equal to the “lowest commercial price” offered to any wholesale or retail purchaser in California. What this would actually equal is unknown as this standard isn’t one that is publicly reported. The Secretary of the California Department of Health and Human Services estimated this would equal to about 40 percent off retail price. The discount under Proposition 79 is well-known. It would be equal to or less than the “Medicaid Best Price” (MBP). The MBP is the net price Medicaid pays for drugs from manufacturers, which by law, is the lowest price paid by any commercial purchaser.

The most important difference between these two propositions concerns the participation of drug manufactures and pharmacies. Under Proposition 78 participation is totally voluntary, and the only stimulus for the drug manufactures and pharmacies to join in is to tap a section of the market which would otherwise have to pay a higher price for the same drugs. With Proposition 79 participation is mandatory, and drug makers could be penalized for not offering sufficient discounts.

Proposition 79 will also cover more people. Residents who make up to $38,000 annually (for and individual) would be eligible while under Proposition 78 only does who make less then $29,000 would be eligible.

On top of this it would also make it illegal for drug makers to demand an “unconscionable price” or terms that lead to an unjust or “unreasonable profit.” Don’t you wish we could do this to oil companies?

If this proposition passes, with no doubt the pharmaceutical industry will spend millions more attacking the well being of several in court, all for mere profit. Supporters of Proposition 78 have gone as far as promising this in the Official Voter Information Guide, “Prop. 79 won’t provide drug discounts to more people then Prop. 78 because Prop. 79 won’t ever take effect.” And if the drug industry has it’s way no one will be covered under Proposition 78 either.