May 2, 2013

Anti-bullying Law an Attack on Constitutional Rights

By Patrick Gage

For many Democrats these days, the 1st amendment is a wonderful thing, provided their detractors shut up and accept the greatness of the liberal worldview as objective truth. The left counters the opposition’s refusal to roll over and surrender with a wide-range of strategically spewed epithets. These “conversation-ending” terms include, but are not limited to, ‘bigot’, ‘homophobe’, ‘neanderthal’, and ‘racist’. Liberals justify their vitriol as a necessity, claiming conservatives are so stupid that rational conversation is simply impossible. As should be apparent already, liberals protect free speech only insofar as those with whom they agree are given the bully pulpit and those with whom they disagree don’t get a chance to speak.

This liberal, anti-opposition mindset has had a severely detrimental effect on our nation in the past 50 years. Post-secondary bias is a prime example of national degradation.

Freedom of speech has all but disappeared on most university campuses, replaced by an overwhelming number of leftist faculty and administrators. These faculty have made it their job to indoctrinate America’s youth and muzzle the opposition. I should note that isn’t the case for all university faculty; many professors actively choose to leave their opinions out of class discussions. In general, however, the left, which claims to support “free expression” on campus, has succeeded in shouting down conservatives and giving students no choice but to entertain its unrealistic worldview.

So how does this liberal, “anti-free speech” drive, which is sickeningly apparent on college campuses across the United States, apply to the new anti-bullying law working its way through the Minnesota Legislature? The answer to this question lies in one two simple words: emotional distress.

On the surface, the “Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act” seems a common sense measure. In short, the bill wants to eliminate bullying in Minnesota schools via a number of legislative mandates and programs. As I said, on the surface, the bill doesn’t seem all that bad. However, beneath the surface, this potential law is a blatant assault on the First Amendment, and more importantly, continues the liberal tradition of shutting up the opposition and using education to muzzle America’s youth.

The problem with this bill lies in its very broad, and consequently very vague, definition of bullying.

The definition is as follows: “Bullying means intimidating, threatening, abusive, or harassing conduct that is objectively offensive and [...] constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress against a student [...] Intimidating, threatening, abusive, or harassing conduct may involve, but is not limited to, conduct that is directed at a student or students based on a person’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, national origin, immigration status, sex, age, marital status, familial status, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, academic status, disability, or status with regard to public assistance, age, or any additional characteristic defined in chapter 363A.”

At first glance, the definition doesn’t seem to pose any problems. The fact that intimidating, threatening, abusive, or harassing conduct shouldn’t be welcome on high school campuses appears to be a foregone conclusion. That’s not to say this definition isn’t full of problems, however. On the contrary, at second glance, the deep-seated faults in this definition are hard to ignore.

I’ll begin with what I call the “emotional distress clause.” As noted earlier, the Legislature states that bullying “constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress against a student…” I have two huge, constitutionally-based issues with this statement.

First, the idea of “intentional infliction” is far too vague. These words demand an objective definition, and yet, there can be no such thing. The idea of intentionality is completely subjective, for only the doer of the action can know with absolute certainty whether he or she committed the act “on purpose.” Consequently, the trustworthiness of the accused becomes the main point of tension. Did he do it intentionally? Was it an accident? These are questions that cannot be answered unless the accused is provided a reasonable amount of trustworthiness.

Is this possible, though? Can such a “case” (I’ll use legal terms to make this situation more understandable) be solved, and the guilty be acquitted, based solely on trustworthiness? Of course not. Real, objective evidence is required to rebut an accusation.

In an average bullying case, however, the accused can only offer a statement that he or she did not act intentionally. Unfortunately, unless the “bully” talked to others prior to the incident or in some way made his or her plans known, there’s no way to tangibly prove that the accused didn’t think about the bullying beforehand.

Thus, if this law were to pass and make intentionality a tipping point in bullying cases, the “jury” (i.e. school administrator, principle) has no choice but to believe the accuser and punish the accused. In effect, “guilty before proven innocent” would become the law of the school bullying land.

My second issue with the aforementioned statement (bullying constitutes an intentional act that causes emotional distress) is its final two words: emotional distress.

My problem with the “emotional distress” clause is as follows: what exactly does emotional distress mean? Where is the line drawn? As it stands now, the line is drawn wherever the accuser wishes it to be drawn.

For example, let’s say a homosexual student attends a class and a classmate happens to mention that he or she doesn’t support gay marriage. Let’s then say that the homosexual student takes offense to that statement and claims that he or she feels emotionally distressed by the other student’s opinion. In this situation, if this anti-bullying law were to pass, the “offending” student has no defense. The accuser feels emotionally distressed, and thus, the accused is, by definition, a bully.

But, wait, you say! The accused didn’t do it on purpose! He obviously didn’t intend to emotionally harm his peer. He merely exercised his right to free speech!

My friends, you are correct. He didn’t do it on purpose. But as noted earlier, how can he prove that? There’s no tangible way for the accused to prove he didn’t intentionally harm his peer. Additionally, because of the “emotionally distressing” nature of his words, according to this law, he forfeited his right to free speech before even opening his mouth.

So what’s at stake here? Quite frankly, free speech. If Governor Dayton signs this bill, “distressing” speech will be outlawed in public school settings. No longer will students be able to freely discuss their political opinions. What was once a “marketplace of ideas” will become a marketplace of politically-correct, unconstitutional education.

I’m sure many of you feel that I’m overreacting. It’s just an anti-bullying bill, right? How could I possibly oppose a bill that protects kids from bullies?

Let me put it this way: I don’t oppose bills that protect kids from bullies. I do, however, oppose bills that blatantly infringe on my rights of free speech. The “Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act” does just that. With its vague definitions and “emotional distress” clause, this bill is an absolute assault on free speech, and as a conservative, I cannot and will not stand for it.

3 comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Current Events

April 27, 2013

Religion and the Republican Party, Part III of III

By Patrick Gage

In Leviticus 19:33-34, God states, “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong […] you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt…”

Echoing Leviticus, Pope John Paul II stated in a 1995 address titled The Church and Illegal Immigration that “[t]oday the illegal migrant comes before us like that ‘stranger’ in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.”

And that’s not all. In addition to stating its opposition to “enforcement only” immigration policies and support for comprehensive immigration reform, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a 2003 pastoral letter titled Strangers No Longer, states that “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.”

Catholic bishops, the Bible, and Pope John Paul II agree, whether explicitly or implicitly, that illegal immigrants should be taken care of, shown dignity, and given help. Yet the Republican Party as a whole has taken a hard-line stance against comprehensive immigration reform, opting to support “enforcement only” immigration policies instead.

Take for example Lamar Smith, Steve King, and Bob Goodlatte, some of the most powerful Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. These men sit on the House Judiciary Committee, which, according to ABC News, is “the committee tasked with overseeing the nation’s immigration laws.” All of them, along with many of their peers, oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Instead, they want illegal immigrants to navigate the process that’s in place now, a process that’s already made immigration impossible for millions of desperate Latinos. At the same time, these men unanimously support increased border control.

Similarly, the Republican Party’s official platform ignores comprehensive reform, instead calling for a number of new policies that would make it nearly impossible for illegal immigrants to live in the country and find jobs. These proposals headline an immigration platform that spurns comprehensive reform entirely, instead opting to focus on increasing border control and making life difficult for millions of illegal immigrants.

The nail in the coffin here is neither Republican leadership nor the party platform; it’s the voters themselves, who, coincidentally, claim to be overwhelmingly Christian. In a recent Washington Post poll, only 42% of Republicans supported a path to citizenship; in the same poll, 92% of Republicans supported stricter border control. In another Washington Post poll, when told that President Obama supported a path to citizenship, only 39% of Republicans expressed support for such a reform.

These numbers are disheartening. As noted many times before, the Republican Party claims to be the “Party of Christ,” and its voters claim to be overwhelmingly Christian. Yet the party and its base continue to oppose comprehensive immigration reform in favor of stricter border control. Pope John Paul II and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made it very clear: every Christian has the duty to help illegal immigrants and not merely lock them out. As a whole, the Republican Party hasn’t lived up to that duty.

What I’ve said today should anger you. The Republican Party claims to be the “Party of Christ” and it’s not. As Christian voters, we have an obligation to vote with our faith in mind. We aren’t doing that right now. Blinded by the laudable desire to ban abortion and defend marriage, we’ve lost sight of many other issues.

This doesn’t mean all is lost. On the contrary, it is our job as Christian voters to use this information to help the Republican Party find its way, and in doing so return God to His rightful place at the forefront of conservative political thought.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

April 26, 2013

Religion and the Republican Party, Part II of III

By Patrick Gage

The Bible makes the rich man’s responsibility clear in Luke 12:48: “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

Furthermore, Pope John XXIII explicitly addressed taxation in his 1961 encyclical Mater et Magistra: “In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burden be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.”

However, not to be deterred in its drive for low taxes, the Republican Party has spurned these commands in favor of fiscal policies that favor the wealthy, not the poor.

Take, for example, taxation at the state level. Though the federal tax code is progressive (meaning it favors the poor over the wealthy), many state tax codes are overwhelmingly regressive (meaning they favor the wealthy over the poor). As a result, at the state level, many poor and middle class individuals pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than high-income individuals.

To my dismay, the Republican Party stands at the forefront of this injustice. Four of the top five states with the most regressive tax codes (Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas) have Republican governors and bicameral Republican majorities. To put things in perspective, in Florida, the poorest 20% of taxpayers pay 514% more in taxes as a percent of income than the top 1% of taxpayers; in South Dakota, the poorest 20% pay 534% more in taxes as a percent of income than the top 1%.

In addition to injustices at the state level, federal tax cuts signed by George W. Bush in 2003 were unjustly favorable to America’s wealthiest families. After the cuts went into effect, the top 20% of earners experienced a 2% decrease in the percentage of federal taxes they were responsible for paying, while the middle class experienced a 1% increase. In short, the Bush tax cuts increased the middle class’ tax burden while decreasing that of the top 20%, and in doing so blatantly ignored Pope John XXIII’s commandment that tax burdens “be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.”

To be clear, I don’t want the government to “soak the rich.” I believe taxes should be low for all individuals, no matter their income. Nevertheless, I cannot reconcile my faith with a tax code that favors the wealthy over the poor, a tax code the Republican Party seems all too willing to endorse.

As before, the GOP’s hypocritical message doesn’t end with torture and taxes. On the contrary, when it comes to immigration, Republican hypocrisy reaches a zenith.

Come back tomorrow to see the 3rd part of this 3-part series examining how the GOP fails the faith when it comes to public policy.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

April 25, 2013

Religion and the Republican Party, Part I of III

By Patrick Gage

For years, the Republican Party has been considered a bastion of Christian politics, a welcome home for religious conservatives. By placing great emphasis on social values and the importance of family, the party has attracted large Protestant and white Catholic majorities. Furthermore, 61 percent of Republican voters claim to attend church at least once a month.

These numbers, as well as the GOP’s main social crusades (that is, banning abortion and protecting marriage), suggest that the party’s policies are aligned with those of Christ. This conclusion is false. On the contrary, though the Republican Party claims the Christian mantle, many of its positions stand in stark contrast to those of the faith.

As a moderate Republican and Catholic, I want nothing more than to bring the GOP into the Christian fold. By focusing on some of the party’s most troubling political stances, namely its support for torture, attempts to pass unjust tax laws, and opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, I hope to spur you to action and prompt change in the modern Republican Party.

I begin with torture. As defined by the United Nations in a 1975 declaration, torture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.” With this definition in mind, it’s clear that the “enhanced interrogation tactics” Republican politicians are so fond of, which include, but are not limited to, waterboarding and sleep deprivation, ought to be classified as torture. Nevertheless, Republicans attempt to hide their guilt behind political jargon, assuming Americans are too stupid to realize that simulated drowning is torturous.

The issue here is not the way Republicans attempt to disguise their immoral politics, however. The issue is the fact that the Republican Party, which widely supports torture, has the gall to claim the mantle of Christianity while both the Catholic Church and Scripture blatantly condemn the practice.

Section 2297 of the Catechism rejects torture in the following manner: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to the respect for the person and for human dignity.”

If the Catechism isn’t evidence enough, Pope Benedict XVI re-emphasized the Church’s teachings in a 2007 address to the Twelfth World Congress of the International Commission of Catholic Prison Pastoral Care: “Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances.’” Romans 12:14-18 then reminds us that we ought to “repay no one evil for evil,” a commandment pro-torture politicians have ignored for decades.

Despite these clear commandments, both ecclesiastical and biblical teachings on torture have fallen on deaf ears in the Republican Party. Despite the fact that 84 percent of Republicans identify as Christians, only 14 percent told the Pew Research Center in a 2009 poll that torture is never justified. Furthermore, 45 percent of Republicans told Angus Reid Public Opinion in a 2012 poll that “the U.S. government should rely on torture to gain information from terrorism suspects.”

Support for torture isn’t found uniquely amongst the party’s base. In reality, the most widespread support for the practice is found in the upper echelon of Republican leadership. George W. Bush authorized the use of waterboarding, a clearly torturous act, on terrorism suspects; conservative darling Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic, supports the use of waterboarding on terrorist suspects; and during a December 2011 news conference, Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney said that he supports the use of “interrogation techniques which go beyond those that are in the military handbook right now.”

When it comes to torture, the Republican Party’s hypocrisy is appalling, for while claiming the mantle of Christ, both its base and its leaders blatantly ignore His teachings.

Ashamedly, Republican hypocrisy doesn’t end there. In addition to ignoring Christian teachings on torture, the Republican Party and its supporters also champion regressive tax policies that place an unjust burden on the poor.

Come back tomorrow to see the 2nd part of this 3-part series examining how the GOP fails the faith when it comes to public policy. 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

March 31, 2013

End Human Trafficking

By Patrick Gage

The month was April, the year 2008. I was in Brazil with my mother, learning more about her work and that of World Childhood Foundation, the organization with which she was associated. During our visit, we toured a community outreach facility located in the midst of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city. The volunteers were attempting to educate and engage Sao Paulo’s poor, children and adults alike, in order to protect them from the pervasive effects of Brazilian organized crime. Specifically, they were working to protect children and young adults from the unseen horrors of the human sex trade.

For many Americans, sex trafficking is a non-issue. As a nation, we’re generally ignorant of the fact that more than 1 million children enter the sex trade every year and that human trafficking (both labor and sexual) is a $32 billion international industry. I find these numbers nauseating. Sex slavery is one of the fastest growing and most heinous criminal industries in the world, and every day we ignore its existence, it gets stronger.

In order to combat the sex trade, the world must first be informed of its existence. Widespread sexual trafficking plagues nations like Belarus, Albania, Nigeria, India, China, and Thailand. For instance, in India an estimated 2.3 million girls and women are involved in the sex industry, and according to the United Nations, 40 percent of those prostitutes are under the age of 18.

These are the numbers the world must see. In order to incite the grass roots, anti-trafficking movements vital to the sex trade’s demise, the average citizen must know the industry’s full breadth and width. If the sex trade remains hidden in the shadows, citizens will have no reason to take action.

To effectively combat trafficking, however, informing people isn’t enough. To truly combat the trade, communities must educate and engage with the industry’s most vulnerable targets: families and young children living in poverty. In order to protect these people, charitable organizations and local communities must work together to keep them off the streets. Organizations like World Childhood Foundation have been working for years to do just that. World Childhood stresses the importance of supporting small, non-governmental organizations that work to deter trafficking at its roots. Keeping poor children and families off the streets, and giving them homes, jobs, and an education, may save millions from sexual bondage.

Beyond efforts to inform the world’s populace and support local charitable organizations, changes must be made at industry and governmental levels. Codes of conduct such as ECPAT and the United Nations Global Compact offer industry leaders the opportunity to publicly express their commitment to combating human sex trafficking. These codes of conduct are especially important for the travel and hospitality industries, both of which are used heavily by the sex trade, because they give employees in those industries the tools to both identify and call attention to possible cases of sex trafficking.

At the governmental level, more nations must agree to outlaw sex trafficking and decriminalize trafficking victims. Furthermore, governments across the world ought to follow the United Nation’s lead in defining the inviolable rights of every human being and protecting those rights to the best of their ability.

Sex trafficking is a major international issue. In a world built on speed and accessibility, the trade is thriving. In order to bring these crimes to light and save millions from slavery, nations across the world must act to inform their citizens, support grass-roots organizations, and work together via international compacts and treaties.

According to the International Labor Organization, at least 1.4 million people are currently “victims of commercial sexual servitude,” and as stated, UNICEF estimates that over 1 million children enter the sex trade every year. I cannot stand idly by as millions suffer. They need our help. With international cooperation, their prayers will be answered.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

March 29, 2013

How to End the Gay Marriage Debate

By Patrick Gage

Marriage is, and always has been, a religious issue.  For thousands of years, this sacred union between one man and one woman was presided over, and solely administered by, religious authorities (i.e. a priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, or the like), and remained relatively free of secular influence. Over the course of the past century, however, secular governments, with overwhelming support from the liberal community, have attempted to redefine marriage, ignoring both religious freedom and the separation of church and state in the process. The social crusade to legalize gay marriage in the United States is a prime example of the state over-stepping its constitutional bounds and defiling religious freedom.

As noted earlier, marriage has always been a religious ceremony presided over by a religious authority; the idea of a government “marrying” a couple and pronouncing them “man and wife” is a relatively new phenomenon. Nevertheless, over the past several decades, secular “marriages” have become socially acceptable and, in many cases, de rigueur in Western government.

In spite of this, the question remains as to how the government has the power to both confer and define marriage, a union that until recently was exclusively religious. The simple answer to this question is that the government does not have the legal power to define an institution that is, in and of itself, religious. As the Bill of Rights states, Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Considering the modern idea of marriage was birthed in ancient Israel, and consequently by the Jewish tradition, it would be ridiculous to argue that marriage is a secular issue; it is, for all intents and purposes, a religious ceremony first implemented by one of the world’s oldest religious sects.

Consequently, considering matrimony’s undeniable religious roots, it is apparent that marriage is not a secular issue, and as a result, secular governments do not have the right to interfere with its definition and/or pronouncement.

This realization led me to an astounding conclusion, and one that I believe can solve the issue of gay marriage once and for all.

The United States government, as I’ve repeatedly said, does not have the legal authority to interfere in religious issues. Because marriage is a religious issue, the government does not have the authority to define or confer a marital union. However, the government does have the right to issue/confer civil unions, because, by definition, a civil union is a union presided over by a civil authority (i.e. the government). Thus, to be clear, the government cannot define/confer marriage but it can define/confer civil unions.

Therefore, I propose the following: the federal government may define civil unions in any way it pleases. They may defined as unions between two people of the opposite sex, two people of the same sex, and/or anything else our lawmakers can come up with. Additionally, every civil union would carry with it all the economic benefits that currently come with a legal marriage. In this way, same-sex couples would be given the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples. These unions would not be recognized as legal marriages. Instead, they would be recognized as something different; for example, the French call these civil unions “civil solidarity pacts.”

If two people want to go further however, and enter into “marriage,” they would have to approach a religious institution. After being wed by a religious authority, such a couple would be recognized, by law, as having been “married.” It should be noted that, in the attempt to increase efficiency, any couple that chooses to be married by a religious authority would, with their consent, also enter into a legally-recognized civil union.

To summarize, my proposal states the following: the federal government may define a civil union however it wishes and confer that union upon any individual(s). This union would carry with it all the economic benefits that currently come with a legal marriage. However, if a couple wanted to be “married,” they would have to go through a religious institution.

As I’ve said many times before, the government has neither the right to define marriage nor confer it; only religious authorities have the power to “marry” a couple. That doesn’t mean the government cannot bring two people together in a secular union, however; civil unions give our government the power to do just that. As is the case in nations like Great Britain and France, these unions would grant homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples but would not be considered “marriage.”

In my opinion, this is the only logical way forward. By distinguishing civil unions from marriage, the separation of church and state remains intact. I sincerely hope that a common sense proposal similar to my own is signed into law sooner rather than later, for doing so would curb secular debate on same-sex unions and finally return the power to marry to religious institutions.

16 comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

March 28, 2013

Why I’m A Moderate

By Patrick Gage

The date was September 4, 2008. I sat silently, enamored by the words of Presidential candidate John McCain. As a 13-year-old Republican, I looked up to McCain, took every word he said and believed it without question. He epitomized my dream. Someday I too wanted to be on that stage; I too wanted to speak to thousands of delegates; I too wanted to accept a Presidential nomination.

Walking out of St. Paul’s Xcel Energy Center that night, I couldn’t possibly have imagined where I would be today.Then a right-wing ideologue firmly opposed to compromise, I actively limited my beliefs to those of Congress’s most radical members, blindly adhering to conservative dogma. As a strict partisan, I believed that the Democratic Party had nothing intelligent to say. My abhorrence of the opposition lasted for three years and proved to be so strong that it took an unprecedented level of political turmoil at home to change my mind.

The 2011 Minnesota government shutdown opened my eyes to the destructive effects of political partisanship. Instead of working together, both parties refused to find common ground, and as a result my home state was plunged into disarray. Thousands of government employees were laid off, local businesses saw a sharp decline in sales, and scores of popular state parks were closed during the Fourth of July weekend. After three weeks of agonizing negotiation, Democratic Governor Mark Dayton agreed to compromise with the Republicans, abandoning ideological purity in order to do what was best for the state.

I was deeply ashamed of the extremism that my representatives exhibited and the extremism that choked the Republican Party. I came to revile the Tea Party’s unabashed partisan nature, and feared that its “no compromise” message would destroy the only political party in which I believed.

From then on, I refused to call myself just a conservative; I became a moderate Republican, proud of my liberal tendencies. After scrutinizing the party platform, I realized I didn’t agree with everything I saw. Instead of taking a hard line on immigration, I became an advocate for amnesty and open borders. Instead of applauding execution, I came to abhor it. Instead of calling for an increase in military spending, I supported cutting back and paying off our debt.

Four years ago, I would have rejected the Democratic Party outright. Today is different. The government shutdown prompted a radical shift in my thought process: I finally accepted the fact that progress demands compromise. With that knowledge, I cast off the chains of “party loyalty” and realized who I really was: a moderate, willing to compromise in the name of moving forward.

Sitting at the RNC that night, I was unaware of the monumental changes I would experience over the next four years. I listened intently to words I would later reject and believed in things I can no longer support. Politics is still my dream, but, as happens so often, the path to that dream has changed. And that’s okay.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Political Beliefs

March 14, 2013

Stop the Drones

By Patrick Gage

“Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you’re killed. Is that what we really want from our government?” – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

We live an age of technology. Smartphones, tablets, and personal computers now play an integral role in everyday life. In fact, considering the level of reliance we have on digital media, it’s hard to imagine living life without it.

That said, technology doesn’t always bear palatable fruit. Recent advances in drone surveillance technology, a product of the United States’ “War on Terror,” exemplify this very fact, threatening to strip Americans of their constitutional freedoms and setting the stage for totalitarian government.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.” This statement couldn’t ring truer than now, as we deal with the dangerous precedent our government set during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unwarranted wiretapping, tracking citizens via the internet, and now domestic drone surveillance were all ideas birthed during the “War on Terror.”

Senator Rand Paul’s recent 13-hour filibuster finally brought these issues back into the spotlight, and it’s time Americans start fighting for their rights. War or no war, the government does not have the authority to listen in on our conversations without our knowledge, nor the right to use drones to track our movements. It doesn’t matter how much “good” these policies will do; what matters is the fact that they give our government an unprecedented amount of power and the ability to track both our thoughts and our movements.

I will not stand idly by as the government takes away my rights. Millions of Americans have died to keep us free, and we spit on their sacrifice if we allow the government to take that freedom away.  Thousands of drones will be put into service over the next couple of years, ostensibly to assist domestic authorities in tracking criminals. If the drones work well, though, who’s to stop the FBI from using drones to track possible threats or suspicious individuals?

Using drones on domestic territory is a slippery slope. Initially they’ll be used to fight crime, but happens next? What happens when the government would like to “keep tabs” on a non-criminal? What better way to track someone than with a drone they neither see nor hear? The possibilities are truly frightening and harken to a 1984-esque society in which the government always knows where we are and what we’re doing. Drones are just the beginning. The government’s intentions are good now, but what will those intentions be in 20 years? We can’t possibly know what the world will be like in two decades. What we can do, however, is plan for that world and make it a better place by enacting good policies now.

The “War on Terror” brought with it a wave of laws that stripped away our freedoms and replaced them a sense of security. The feds claim that these measures “protect” us, but at what cost? As Ben Franklin said, we don’t deserve liberty if we’re willing to give it away for momentary safety. As the war in Afghanistan comes to a close, and with it the “War on Terror,” it’s time to take our liberties back.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Current Events

February 22, 2013

Boy Scout Discrimination Must End

By Patrick Gage

Sixty years ago, the U.S. Army was segregated, women were barred from combat, and openly homosexual citizens couldn’t join the armed forces. Luckily, all of these discriminatory practices are things of the past. That’s not to say, however, that discrimination in America is dead. On the contrary, discrimination still permeates many sectors of American society. In fact, the categorical discrimination of homosexuals remains a policy of arguably America’s most identifiable organization: the Boy Scouts of America.

Since its inception, Boy Scouts of America has banned openly gay people from participating in its activities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Scout’s official policy on homosexuals used to include the following statement:

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.”

Recently, the Scouts’ policies have come under intense scrutiny, with politicians and activists alike calling attention to the group’s discrimination. Supporters of the Boy Scouts’ current policies argue that allowing gays to participate in the organization would violate the group’s “core values.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who supports the Scout’s current policies, went so far as to claim in his 2008 book “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For” that “because gay activism is central to [homosexual's] lives, it would unavoidably be a topic of conversation within a Scout troop. This would distract from the mission of Scouting: character building, not sex education.”

Furthermore, many in the religious community, which according to the New York Times backs approximately 70 percent of Boy Scout troops, expressed fears that such a policy change would place their beliefs at odds with those of the Boy Scouts of America.

The problem, however, is this: in its current state, the Boy Scouts’ policy is discriminatory.

From what I can see, the BSA’s current policies categorically ban all homosexuals from participation in the organization. I do not, and will never, support such an unjust ban. That said, I want to make it clear that I support the BSA’s right to protect its members from what it deems are immoral practices. The government should not and cannot force a private organization to employ someone whose lifestyle stands in stark contrast to that organization’s values.

To be clear, my message for the Boy Scouts’ is as follows: don’t ban all homosexuals from participating in your organization. Remove the current policy and replace it with a policy that pledges to examine every candidate on an individual basis. If you feel that a candidate will be a poor role model for your members or will threaten your core values, don’t offer them employment. If however, you feel that a candidate, despite his or her sexual orientation, will be a good role model for your members and will affirm your core values, offer them a position.

That is all I ask. Scrap the policy that categorically bans homosexuals and replace it with a policy of individual review. That way, categorical, and I might add, unjust discrimination will be avoided.

22 comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Uncategorized

January 25, 2013

Let Them Fight

By Patrick Gage

“The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.” – Leon Panetta, United States Secretary of Defense

I disagree with President Obama on a number of issues: deficit spending, health care, tax rates, abortion. Despite these political differences, however, the President and I tend to agree on social issues, with immigration and equality in the military serving as two primary examples. Consequently, I was both surprised and elated to learn that this week, the Pentagon, with President Obama’s support, officially lifted the army’s ban on female involvement in active combat. With the justified repeal of the Pentagon’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it was only a matter of time before women were given the opportunity to serve in combat roles. The lifting of this ban marks a new chapter in American military history and eliminates one of the final vestiges of discrimination in the armed forces. Finally, equality in the military will reign supreme.

I’ve always felt that anyone who’s willing and able, no matter their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, should be given the chance to serve on the front lines. I understand that many people vehemently oppose giving women combat roles. Claims that they won’t be able to handle the daily grind, however, or that they will ruin “unit cohesion,” are ludicrous, and quite frankly, sexist.

The first claim can be dealt with swiftly. In lifting this ban, Mr. Panetta and his staff have not, in any way, shape, or form, compromised the training regimen that will be administered to each potential recruit. The women who are sent to the front lines will be required to pass the same tests as the men who are sent along with them. What those tests will look like I can’t say, but I can say with absolute certainty that the army will not make its tests easier merely to ensure that women succeed. In the end, Panetta’s plan will integrate strong, qualified women into combat units, not the weak, incompetent women that army officials conjure up to scare right-wing politicians.

Secondly, the claim that women will ruin unit cohesion and compromise the military’s ability to fight wars is utterly ridiculous. This argument first arose when Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military following WWII and was used extensively when conservatives argued that openly homosexual soldiers were unfit to serve in the armed forces. In both instances, the government forced integration and the military came out unscathed.

Looking at history, I don’t believe the army will be adversely affected by the integration of women into combat roles. First, the argument that men will be distracted by women, and thus unable to fulfill their duties, degrades the professional nature of every soldier. Men in the army are trained to be determined, single-minded individuals. If a soldier is unable to focus on a mission because he’s distracted by a female, he doesn’t deserve to wear the uniform. Furthermore, the “problems” that women will purportedly cause are no different in scope than the problems that men already cause. Ex-infantrymen Adrian Bonenberger says it best: “While some of the problems afflicting women [are] unique (men cannot become pregnant), they [occur] to the same degree that men [get] into fights and [encounter] disciplinary problems.”

Women are ready for combat. This nation is home to countless females who are fully capable of fighting our wars and handling themselves in a professional manner. The arguments that conservatives use to convince the masses are just plain wrong. The men will handle themselves in a professional manner, women will not cause a greater degree of problems than their male counterparts (as evidenced by Mr. Bonenberger’s first-hand account), and the female population will bring new perspective to the battlefield. Leon Panetta’s actions will usher in a new era of military equality and efficiency. I applaud him for his bold step and pray that his actions inspire greater fairness not only in the military but in American society as a whole.

1 comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Political Beliefs

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 455 other followers