Liberal Rant: The Supreme Court

Cartoon by Nick Anderson.

Antonin Scalia has died, and already conservatives are trying to frame his legacy as a staunch originalist who ruled based on what the law said, not what the political trends were. Liberals such as myself have a hard time swallowing that pill, as we see him as more of an actively conservative judge who ruled largely along ideological lines. I personally find it hard to believe an originalist would side with Hobby Lobby and rule that limiting campaign contributions from corporations was a detriment to free speech. Regardless, I don’t think his legacy will become clear until well after his death. It’s easier to judge the dead long after the fact.

As of writing this, Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court has not been filled, nor has Obama nominated a replacement. Yet already we see congressional Republicans lining up behind Mitch McConnell in his move to block any Supreme Court nominee until a new president is elected. Their reasoning is that Obama should not be able to pack the court with another liberal justice, tilting the Supreme Court to the left and making it easier for activist rulings to be issued.

There’s something shocking yet depressingly familiar about having one of America’s two major parties being willing to paralyze one of the biggest institutions in the country to score political points. Republicans have been blocking Obama’s nominees ever since he took office, forcing many agencies to go without leadership for months or even years. Republicans, despite trying to brand themselves as something other than the party of “no,” are taking this to the logical extreme with this recent stance against replacing Scalia. This is somewhat expected, but it doesn’t make it any less egregious.

Let’s start with the obvious here. We have an odd number of justices for a reason: to prevent ties. With an even number of justices, ties are much more likely to happen, meaning that the Supreme Court can effectively deadlock itself. And given how the current make up is four liberal justices and four conservative ones, that seems very likely to happen. Republicans have already paralyze the legislative branch with their posturing and obstructionist reactionism. If they are successful in their latest venture, then they will have paralyzed the judicial branch as well. Once again, Republicans are letting politics get in the way of actual governance.

Second, it’s the president’s constitutional authority to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. In one of the greatest ironies in this administration, the party that thumps and invokes the Constitution the most are trying to prevent Obama from doing his constitutional duty. By preventing Obama from doing his job for the sake of politics, they are ignoring (or even defying) their beloved document that Democrats always seem to violate. Despite trying to protect the legacy of a supposed originalist and literalist, they are going against what the Constitution literally says. I hope the irony is not lost on those fellows.

Third, and most importantly, Republicans don’t even have to do what they’re doing to get someone they like nominated. I don’t know if McConnell, Cruz, and their kin realize this, but they have a majority in the Senate. This means even if Obama wanted to pack in an activist liberal, he couldn’t, because the Senate could just kill the nomination. At this point, if Obama wants to make good on his promise, he’ll need to nominate a moderate or a conservative to the bench. In other words, this posturing by the Republicans is totally unneeded, as they can still get a conservative justice despite Obama being in office.

The Republicans latest ploy is facepalm-worthy, not only because they’re prioritizing politics over the functionality of one of the country’s most vital institutions, but also because they can get their way without having to openly state their plans to block any nominee. This isn’t overplaying their hand, this is them revealing their hand before the dealer reveals his when the odds are already in their favor. In a sense, Republicans have already lost whatever they were trying to accomplish, as they’ve pretty much cemented themselves as a party of obstructionists, not conservatives. I don’t know whether I should be celebrating or shaking my head.

Liberal Rant: The New Gilded Age

The Gilded Age was an era in American history lasting from the end of Reconstruction to the election of Theodore Roosevelt, or 1877 to 1900. The era’s name comes from Mark Twain, remarking on the dangerous inequality and unequal distribution of wealth of the day, suggesting the growth was superficial, like a gold coating hiding something of little worth. The era was marked by gross income inequality (one estimate suggests that the top 1% of Americans owned 45% of the nation’s wealth), crippling poverty, volatile and devastating downturns, monopolies, lawmakers in the back pockets of corporate interests, and a vilification of the poor and labor unions. It is regarded as one of the darker periods of American history, and was home to the then biggest economic downturn of all time.

We’d like to think we’re beyond that, but reality begs to differ. In many ways, our era bears an unsettling resemblance to the Gilded Age. The top 1% owns more wealth than the rest of the nation combined. The world is still suffering the consequences of a massive economic downturn. Corporate regulations are continuously being loosened, and our top politicians are dependant on the money of the elite. Labor unions and the poor are blasted, the former for being a business killing blight that outstayed its welcome, and the latter for being lazy leeches that are totally dependant on the government.

The comparison isn’t perfect. For one thing, the biggest employer of the Gilded Age was manufacturing, not service. The poor are generally better off than their Gilded Age counterparts. The biggest money makers in the economy is now finance, not steel or railroads. The prevailing Social Darwinist ideologies have been replaced with Libertarianism, though the similarities between the two are startling. But where the two eras share similarities are the most important, and perhaps the most defining challenge of our era.

There are many problems with having a second Gilded Age. For one, the original era showed us the danger of power being in the hands of too few. By simply buying our legislatures, the wealthy of then and the wealthy of now are able to push their agenda through Congress without resistance, which benefits them at the expense of nearly everyone else. The legislation of the Gilded Age and now reward those who already have the most wealth with things like deregulation, tax cuts, incentives, and subsidies. They also make it next to impossible to advance any new legislation that would address the unregulated markets, or protect workers.

Another huge problem that the two eras share is the dismal state of the working class. Both eras are home to many people blaming the struggle of the poor on the poor themselves, often spouting the tired line that if they just worked harder, they wouldn’t be in poverty. Services that help lower income families are constantly under fire. Labor unions, a service that can truly help workers, are actively being legislated against. Laws that would actually help lift up the working class, like a minimum wage hike, is being fought against tooth and nail. Thanks to corporate interests and general apathy, the working class is stuck in a condition that would be considered unacceptable by many.

So why has history repeated itself? The first reason is that the United States, since the Watergate scandal, has moved to the right, and continues to do so. This has allowed for things like Reaganomics and supply side economics to flourish, even though it only benefits the upper class. What’s truly puzzling is that since the Great Recession, voters have not moved to the left like in other economic downturns but further to the right, redoubling commitment to what should be regarded are defeated ideologies. History has repeated itself because voters place more faith in politicians that protect business and attack the working class.

The second reason is that the United States has lacked a strong liberal leader that is willing to fight the wealthy in the name of the lower and middle classes. Since Nixon, we’ve had three Democratic president, none of which can be regarded as strong liberals, and have generally been unwilling to use their power in a manner similar to Theodore Roosevelt. It took Roosevelt, a strong and active progressive, to bring an end to the Gilded Age and end the business practices that greatly damaged the working class. As of now the only high profile progressive in the Democratic party is Bernie Sanders, a man who cannot enact his proposals unless he had an army of like-minded legislators and government officials with him.

Things look bleak for America, not because of any security threats or who’s coming into the country, but because we’ve allowed our rich to become too rich, and our poor to become too poor. And unless people stop trying to solve their problems by electing the people furthest to the right and ignore the people willing to use the government to make a difference, then we aren’t going to change.

Liberal Rant: 5 Lamesass Arguments Against Feminism

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of feminism, ranging from how it primarily benefits white, middle to upper class white women to its use of the term “rape culture.” However, there are a lot of lamer and less effective arguments that people keep using. These five are the arguments I’ve come across the most while on the internet. Are they strawmen? A little, but most of these arguments have actually been used, sometimes verbatim.

#1- You should call yourselves “egalitarians,” not “feminists.”

The Claim: If feminism really wanted equality for the sexes, they wouldn’t called themselves “feminists,” as it implies favoritism towards women. It should be called “egalitarianism,” which means equality for all.

Why It’s Bunk: First, this argument ignores the history behind feminism. For thousand of years, women were the oppressed class. They were denied many of the rights their male counterparts had for little reason other their gender. Even today, there are inequalities between men and women, with the man almost always having the edge. Feminism’s name implies favoritism towards women because nine times out of ten, they were the ones in really need of equality, and still are.

Second, this argument is a lazy way to paint those fighting sexism as sexist themselves in a similar manner of calling those who support Black Lives Matters for being racist for not saying “all lives matter.” Yes, feminism focuses almost entirely on women, but that’s because on a basis of gender, women get the short end of the stick. To claim feminists are being sexist because they are focusing on the inequalities faced by women is akin to saying the civil rights movements of the 60s were racist because they focused on the inequalities faced by blacks. Saying that those who want to see an equality for the sexes should call themselves something different for the sake of fairness ignores both the situation of women and feminism, past and present.

Third, it insinuates that if you identify as a feminist, you can’t identify as anything else. The main idea behind wanting to call yourself “egalitarian” but not “feminist” is that doing so opens yourself to want equality for all, not just for women. This is a faulty idea because supporting feminism in no ways bars you from supporting other movements as well. You can be a feminist, but you can still identify with groups that support gay rights, minority rights, and others. Social justice is not a rigid class system where you can only be one class at a time; it’s more like a skill tree. You can invest in as many branches as you see fit, but you are free to invest more in certain paths.

Finally, and most importantly, it’s arguing semantics so that people who don’t like feminism can still claim to be progressive.

#2- “My issue is not with feminism, but with modern feminism”

The Claim: The first two waves of feminism are fine, as they wanted equality and were civil. Modern feminism, on the other hand, wants superiority over men and are actively unpleasant.

Why It’s Bunk: This claim has two major problems. The first is that the first two waves of feminism had their less savory wings as well. Both had figures who advocated for more extreme goals and methods for achieving them. Obviously, the only ones who truly achieved their goals where the more moderate ones, but those extremists still existed. Feminist with extreme goals are not new to the current wave like people insinuate with the term “modern feminism.” Like any -ism, the movement had its share of fringe members, past and present.

Second, it takes a few extreme, vocal samplings of feminism to paint the entire movement. Thanks to the internet, it's easy for a person on the fringe to project their views and goals, but the fact is that no matter how loudly they speak, they aren’t the majority. Painting an entire movement based on its fringe is dishonest at best, and ignores that it’s a minority, not a majority. It’s like me going to Infowars and claiming that all Republican voters are conspiracy theorists, or judging all adult men by the works of Daryush Valizadeh (better known as Roosh V) or Paul Elam. All -isms and movements have their less savory members, and it is ignorant and even dishonest to act as if the fringe represents the norm.

#3- “Feminism is not necessary in today’s society.”

The Claim: Equality between men and women has been achieved, which makes feminism unnecessary. If anything, the major talking points of today’s feminism are either false or overblown.

Why It’s Bunk: Equality between men and women in the western world may have been achieved legally, but there’s a difference between what the law says and if it’s being implemented properly or even followed. For example, it may be legal to get an abortion in the United States, but lawmakers are finding new ways to restrict access to them to the extent where an abortion is not a viable option. Just because the law says people are equal doesn’t mean they are equal, and women in the west are still not totally equal. Women may not face the major obstacles the first and second wave of feminism do, but they still face sexism and discrimination. Injustice, no matter how small, is still injustice, and it must be fought. There will one day be a day where feminism is unnecessary, but that day will also be the day that both men and women are truly equal.

And the insistent claim that the gender pay gap and campus rape are myths are false. The statistics might be overblown, but they still exist. Just because you don’t want something to be true doesn’t mean it’s not true.

#4- “If feminists wanted to help, they’d go somewhere else.”

The Claim: If feminists were truly concerned about equality between the sexes, they’d go somewhere like the Middle East or Africa, where women actually face sexism. But since they don’t, they don’t actually care about sexism.

Why It’s Bunk: This is a spectacularly disingenuous argument for several reasons. First, it is ignorant (or even ignores) of the fact that there are already feminists in places like Saudi Arabia and Africa. They are just fighting for a very different version of feminism; one that is often within the cultural borders of their society. Feminists in the Middle East, for example, are fighting for equality for women within the parameters of the Qoran. It also ignores the thousands of dollars raised by western feminists to aid feminists abroad.

It’s also disingenuous because it ignores that western feminists would be of little actual use in those environments. Let’s say a western feminist took the criticism seriously and went to help in a country like Iran. She wouldn’t know the language the Iranians speak, so she couldn’t communicate with the native citizens. She wouldn’t know the culture or customs, so she’d wouldn't be able to apply her views proficiently. And most importantly, she’d probably be killed or imprisoned by groups who don’t want women to advance. This whole argument is like saying to a man who wants to do something about black-on-black violence, “well if you’re so concerned, why don’t you go to Somalia?” It sounds ridiculous in that scenario because it is ridiculous.

Finally, it’s a lazy way to handwave any actual problems a feminist may be trying to address. Yes, the injustices faced by women abroad is worse than in the west, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have people over here fighting injustices that still persist.

#5- Men have it just as hard, if not harder, so you should stop complaining.

The Claim: Men face problems in today’s society too, and in some cases, they have it worse than women, so women should stop complaining that they face sexism.

Why It’s Bunk: Whenever this argument comes up, it’s usually accompanied by a long list of grievances faced by men that somehow proves that women have it easy and should stop complaining. They usually include things like higher suicide rates, higher incarceration rates, higher rates of homelessness, and higher combat fatalities. Really, this entire entry can be about this particular brand of argument, but I’ll keep it brief.

First there’s addressing the higher combat fatality rates. For most of recorded history, women were not allowed to joined armed forces because they were viewed as weak and would therefore be a liability on the battlefield. So when people complain about things like the draft being unfair and how women have it easy because of it, remember that it was made by other men with an exclusionary spirit.

The other three complaints I listed miss the point of a movement like feminism, as in it is meant to fight institutional sexism, not only just problems women face. Very few grievances listed by people who insist men have it just as hard if not harder than women are not institutional, as in it does not happen to men solely because they are men. There are a myriad of reasons one might be homeless or commit suicide, but gender is rarely, if ever, the sole cause. It also ignores the fact that men have many privileges women don’t, and hold most of the highest positions in the world because of the misfortune of some.

Really, the main reason many people bring up this argument is not to showcase the suffering of men; it’s used to get people who identify about feminists to shut up. It’s a tactic to shut down the conversation. There are reasonable ways to ask, “but what about the men,” and not automatically get death glares. However, if you’re using it to get feminist to shut up, or make them look like hypocrites for not addressing something that’s out of their power, then you’re not actually adding to the conversation. You’re just being a jerk.

Liberal Rant: The Government We Deserve

I’m just as surprised as anyone that Donald Trump is doing as well as he is doing. It’s baffling; despite who he is, what he does, and what he says, he consistently places first in primary polls everywhere. Often by double digits, no less. It may be because I’m a business hating liberal, but no one should be looking at Trump and think, “yeah, that guy should be the most powerful man in the free world.” And yet millions of Americans are.

But this isn’t another editorial about how Trump is a terrible candidate, because honestly, all slavoes against Trump make him stronger. Actually, I’d like to open by talking about the Republican consistently placing second in these polls: Ben Carson.

Ben Carson shares a lot of positions with your typical modern Republican, and on paper he seems like a good choice for the Republican nominee. Then he opens his mouth. He got some weird looks for saying that the Affordable Care Act was the worst thing since slavery. He’s gotten a lot of flak recently for saying that a Muslim should never be president because of Sharia Law. He even went as far as to cite prison rape as indisputable evidence that being gay is a choice. Carson may speak softer than Trump, but he carries a much wackier stick.

But the worst part about Carson is the support he enjoys. That comment about Muslims he made? That got him the admiration of many on the right. When people got justifiably angry about his remark, they jumped to his defense saying that the rest of America is just too politically correct. Hell, his campaign is now raising more money than ever since his remarks. Just how Trump’s popularity baffles me, it also baffles me that a blatant discriminatory remark would earn admiration.

Carson is of course getting flak for what he said, but the fact that he’s winning supporters due to this should not be the case. Yet he’s constantly second in polls across the nation.

This is what our political landscape has become; where people clearly not fit for governance are met with roaring cheers from a significant part of the populous, and where anyone actually fit is shoved to the side, or worse, is jeered into submission. And we deserve it.

The state of the Republican primary, the state of our government, and the state of our political landscape has been pinned on many things. But one thing that must be accepted is that voters brought it on themselves. At the end of the day, it was their choice to put these destructive, polarizing politicians into office. It was they who voted for men and women who proudly ran on a platform of not compromising and tearing down the government. They were chosen precisely because they had no experience, as if that was an admirable quality. People have no right to be shocked or angry about how our officials are tearing apart the government.

It’s easy to blame something else. Many people blame the disproportionate (and admittedly unfair) influence the wealthy that has been exacerbated by Citizen’s United. And it's true that their money has bought a good deal of airwaves, allowing them to control the message. It’s also true that their money help shape legislative agendas through campaign contributions and lobbying. But at the end of the day, the wealthy cannot buy a person’s vote. People, at the end of the day, are still in charge of who gets into office. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I am not saying that voting conservative is the same as voting for this government to continue its downward slide. The government can still do great things when placed into the hands of moderate conservatives. But many of the conservatives that we elect or pay attention to are not those. Many are those that despise government and are content with shutting down everything without offering an alternative. Yet we chose to elect those people, and our government, and our nation as a whole, is worse off for it.

We vote for these people because we allow ourselves to be easily swayed. We allow ourselves to be caught by meaningless slogans, flag waving, and Constitution thumping, that we are willing to overlook the fact that these people will destroy the very institution we’re sending them to. We don’t look at what they’re saying, and we don’t stop to consider the consequences of choosing an inexperienced, uncompromising politician to run our nation. We allow ourselves to fall for backwards logic that expertise and experience are things to be shunned. As such, this is the government we brought on ourselves.

But all's not lost. We get the government we deserve, and if we educate ourselves, we can again have a government worth believing in. We must be more cynical; take every slogan or reference to our Constitution with a grain of salt. We must prize an ethic to work, not an ethic to destroy. We must toute a willingness to compromise, not willful uncooperation. Cynicism and better judgement are the key to a better government.

Voter may have brought Trump, Carson, and our dysfunctional government on themselves. But regardless of what the wealthy or politicians do or say, they cannot take away our ability to make an informed decision. We may get the government we deserve, but that can work in our favor with a healthy dose of cynicism and self discipline.

Liberal Rant: The Confederate Flag

As a Texan, the Confederate flag is a part of my past. As a southerner, it's an important part of my history. But as an American and a liberal, I feel rather embarrassed by it. Not because of personal objections, but because of the staunch defense given to it. There exist a good deal of southerners that claim the flag to be an important part of southern heritage, yet either choose to ignore or deny the massive racial implications it carries.

I don’t deny that the Confederate flag holds an important part in American history, but I have to wonder what part of it I, as a southerner, should be proud of. The Confederates were rebels who fought against the United States. They succeeded because an abolitionist was elected president. They fought to keep slavery alive. The last one is the most important here; the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism as much as it is a symbol of the south.

Naturally, many people object to having the Confederate flag on public grounds or in public spaces. And naturally, people in favor of keeping the flag up claim taking it down would First Amendment rights. Both sides have a point; the Confederate flag is technically protected under the First Amendment, even if it does carry heavy racial implications. However, there’s more to the First Amendment than defenders say.

The First Amendment protects many things, but it doesn’t cover everything. Perhaps the most important thing to know is that the First Amendment is not a shield from all consequences. It may prevent you from being arrested by the government, but it’s not a shield for any objections or criticisms from what you say. It doesn’t stop someone from being offended from what you say. So even though the Confederate flag is protected as free speech, it doesn’t stop people from being offended by it.

That being said, I don’t think we have remove all traces of the Confederate flag; we just have to keep it a private matter. A person can still wear Confederate flag memorabilia, but it’s not appropriate to have it on public grounds. It’s possible to remember history without plastering it everywhere, or without tearing it all down.

Liberal Rant: Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

Back in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law. The law says that the government cannot "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." In other words, under the RFRA, if a person has sincere religious objections to a law, then he or she can challenge it in court. Today, 21 states have passed similar laws. With all this in mind, it seems hard to object to what Indiana is doing, at least from a legal standpoint. Some have even gone as to say that Indiana’s law is basically the same as the OB (“original bill,” for those not hip to today’s legal lingo), and that objections are ill-founded.

But if that were the case, then there wouldn’t be this huge backlash. Indiana’s RFRA is quite different. The most notable difference between the two is that every other RFRA only covers disputes between an individual or group and the government, whereas the Indiana law extends this right to object to disputes between private citizens. And by citizens, I don’t just mean actual people; the law can extend to any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, and what have you. This broadens the scope of the law immensely, and ultimately means that any individual or group can deny service to certain people on religious grounds.

The Indiana law is a solution in search of a problem. Even if we take possible discrimination out the equation, its still a law that addresses an issue that’s practically non-existent. The citizens of Indiana never really had their religious rights attacked. I could understand the need for such a law if there were precedent, but at the moment, this law seems to create more problems than it solves. It allows businesses to deny services to certain customers (not just gays, but also potentially Jews, Muslims, and even Christians), and it allows those businesses to hide behind religious freedom as justification.

I don’t hate religious freedom. I think the ability to practice your religion of choice without government interference is an important civil right. But using religion as an excuse to not treat all people equally is not exercising religious freedom; that’s discrimination. While I’m all for protecting religious rights, I also think its important to protect general civil rights. And its not like you can’t do both; the original RFRA does so. As it stands, the Indiana law aims to protect religious rights by allowing others to violate the civil rights of people they don’t like. Essentially, we have a law that prioritizes religious rights over some people’s civil rights, which is not something you should be proud over.

I’m so glad the Indiana law got this much backlash. A law like this has no place in modern America. Hopefully the bill will be replaced with something more sensible.

Liberal Rant: Ted Cruz

Texas is a reliable red anchor, which makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes. In my head, most Texan politicians should be laughed out of the building, yet they are received with open arms and thunderous approval. This is especially the case with Ted Cruz; I thought he would be crushed in his senatorial race, but was elected by an enormous margin. He’s made several statements that should be mocked, but he’s now considered a major figure among hardcore conservatives.

And now he’s running for president. Wonderful.

But this isn’t a post about how Ted Cruz says stupid things. That is honestly a dead horse (or in this case a dead elephant). This isn’t about how Cruz is not a good candidate or that he has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency. Those dead horses are about to be beaten. This post is about how scary Ted Cruz is as a Republican force. He may just be a one term senator, but his goals make me cringe.

Cruz has openly said several times that he’s not only waging war against Democrats, but also against moderate Republicans. Those in the “mushy middle” (which is probably the dumbest term since “lamestream media”), according to him, are simply not conservative enough to make America the best it could be. He wants to win without the help of the moderates, as he sees them as destructive to the conservative cause. In other words, he wants to see the Republican party move further to the right.

The Republican party moving further right is a scary thought. For one thing, moderate Republicans are the ones getting things done in Congress. The grandstanding, political point scorers like Cruz are the ones blocking legislation and killing bills. Their moderate counterpoints, who are actually willing to work with Democrats on some things, are needed now more than ever. Moving further to the right means that the moderates will be wiped out, and that Congress will be more inactive and polarized than ever.

The Republican party veering further to the right also means a more destructive party mentality. Cruz and his allies are not interested in governing; they are interested in tearing things down. Cruz has already pledged himself to repealing Obamacare, and I doubt that’s not the only thing on his chopping block. The thing is we don’t need destroyers right now; rolling things back is the last thing we need. We need bipartisanship, and if Cruz succeeds in his bid to wipe out moderates, then that word is as good as gone.

Cruz is very unlikely to win, but him winning is not what I’m concerned with. I’m much more concerned with his bid to wipe the Republican middle, and the repercussions we’ll face if he succeeds.

Liberal Rant: The Ammo Ban

Government sappin’ mah 2nd Amendment rights!

Recently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (or ATF) apologized for a “publishing error” that suggested that they were trying to ban the sale of AR-15 ammo. This is contradictory at best, as the agency is trying to ban “green tipped” ammo, commonly used in AR-15 rifles. On top of that, the current administration has supported legislation that would make America’s favorite rifle illegal to own. So forgive me if I don’t buy the ATF’s apology.

Of course, the apology isn’t the subject of today’s rant: its the right’s reaction. Just as you’d expect, pro-gun activists and Republicans are in a frenzy, claiming its a violation of their second amendment rights, that Obama is overstepping his boundaries as president, and so on. Rand Paul even urged people to thwart Obama’s “backdoor methods”. The response is typical at this point, but what’s weird is what they’re getting mad about.

For starters, the ammo they’re defending is armor piercing rounds. Now I know the AR-15 is commonly used for hunting nowadays, and its perfectly legal to hunt with one. However, I have to question anyone who believes that believes that taking away a round that can tear through bullet proof vests (no exaggeration here). What, are they hunting elephants? Do the local deer all wear tank armor? Common sense would dictate that you don’t really need armor piercing rounds for recreational purposes.

An AR-15.

Another thing I have to question is why they're using the second amendment defense for assault rifles. The AR-15 has fire 90 rounds per minute on its real-auto rate, and while I know no one is using that rate for hunting, that’s still a lot of bullets. I could understand applying the second amendment to pistols or even hunting rifles, but for guns that would be used in military operations? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust anyone with an assault rifle in public. It scares me and I’m sure it scares a lot of people.

Look, I’m not anti-gun. I think its fine for civilians to have guns, but there have to be parameters for having one. Are you mentally stable? What is the gun for? What type of gun do you want? These seem like common sense regulations to me. I wouldn’t want someone mentally unstable handling a gun, nor do I want anyone who isn’t in a battle handling an assault rifle. Self defence and hunting guns are perfectly fine.

Yes, I know what the second amendment says. However, I think we can have regulations without infringing on these rights. People keep saying that you have to choose between freedom (our Constitution) and security (regulations), but I think its a false dichotomy. Its fully possible to have both. You may not get as much freedom as you think you want, but you can still have those freedoms with common sense regulations. Seriously, it's sometimes okay to give up some freedoms for the good of society. Heck, that’s kind of the point of society.

I hope this whole thing doesn’t evolve into a national issue. I also hope that gun rights activists can come up with a better reason to carry assault rifles in public that isn’t “the second amendment says I can.” Until then, I will continue to believe in common sense gun safety laws.

Liberal Rant: Vaccines and Autism

Thank you, Stuart Carlson.

One thing you should know about me is that I am autistic. Specifically, I have a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome. Its nothing serious; it just means my brain is wired differently. For example, I’m able to do the same thing many times without getting bored, but I’m more susceptible to loud noises. There are millions like me; it is estimated that 1 in 68 children born in America have some form of autism.

So what causes autism? Honestly, we have no idea. Autism is a very complex thing, and even though we’re studying it quite intently, there’s still a lot we don’t know. There’s reason to believe that it's genetic, but its not linked to one gene sickle cell or Huntington’s disease. There’s also a good case to be made for environmental causes. However, there is absolutely no good reason to believe that vaccines is a serious cause of autism.

I can’t believe I have to say this, but vaccines don’t cause autism. And believe, every study that has said so has been thoroughly discredited. The most famous example and starter of this nontroversy, the Wakefield paper, has been disproven many, many times. The guy who wrote it actively manipulated his data, and he actually had his license revoked. There exist other papers, like one by Brian Hooker, which features faulty statistics and manipulated data, and one by Mark Geier, which contains very serious mathematical errors and even omissions. So yeah, the case for vaccines causing autism is pretty weak.

Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Hate to say it (actually, I don’t), but the facts are on the side of vaccination. Its been proven that there’s no link between thimerosal, an ingredient in several vaccines, and autism. There’s no link between mercury and autism either. In fact, the chance of you getting an adverse side effect due to a vaccine is literally one in a million. To put that in perspective, the chances of getting hit by meteor is i in 250,000. Let me repeat: you are four times as likely to be hit by a meteor than to have a negative reaction to a vaccine.

So if the science is so real, how come there is still skepticism surrounding vaccines? Honestly, I blame bad reporting. Modern new outlets give equal attention to both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine cohorts, giving the illusions that a) both groups are equally important and b) that this is a controversy with no clear answer. Of course, this isn’t the case at all, but with journalist giving both sides equal clout, the myth persists. Sorry, but its the journalist job to report what’s right; stopping at just getting both sides is just half the job.

Another question, which is more of a personal one, is why anti-vaccine activists feel the need to vilify autism. Why would your children being autistic seriously worry you. I know some forms of extreme autism can reduce someone’s abilities immensely, but that’s just extreme cases. Autism is a spectrum, and those cases are just one end; there are tons of others that can function in real life. In fact, here’s a short list of people with autism:

• Dan Harmon- writer on the television show Community
• Temple Grandin- author and food animal handling system designer
• Satoshi Tajiri- creator of the Pokemon series
• Courtney Love- frontwoman of the rock band Hole
• Dan Aykroyd- actor who starred in movies such as Ghostbusters
• Tim Burton- director of films such as A Nightmare Before Christmas
• Stanley Kubrick- director of films such as The Shining

"Ray, if someone asks you if your autistic, you say yes!"

I’m not saying autism is great; far from it. But to treat it as a serious threat is just as wrong.

Bottom line: vaccinate your damn kids. The benefits are huge and the chance of something messy happening is about 100 time less likely than your kid getting hit by lightning (no, seriously, the chances of being hit by lightning is 1 in 10,000).

Liberal Rant: The Crisis in Ukraine

When I was a middle school student, I was taught that Taiwan would be the most likely cause of World War III. At the time, it made sense; Taiwan was and still is trying to obtain its independence from China, who has no intention in losing it. The western world would love to see an independent Taiwan and China seems willing to fight for it. However, given recent events, I believe WW3 won’t be caused by Taiwan; it will be caused by a fight over Ukraine.

Right now Ukraine is in the middle of a civil war. Ukrainian forces have been fighting pro-Russian rebels for quite some time now. The rebels have proven to be a surprisingly tough opponent, which many have attributed to Russian support. Of course, Russia denies any connections to the rebels, which is puzzling given how well equipped and supplied they are. What, did those weapons just materialize out of cold air? Did the rebels just have some spare Grad rockets in their garage?

But I digress. Right now, the UN is debating on new sanctions on Russia. This may seem like an empty gesture, but the current sanctions are actually working. The ruble is in a freefall, with its value dropping 50 percent. And with the recent drop in oil prices, Russia is feeling the burn more than ever. Its forecasted that Russia’s GDP is to drop 3 percent, and the Kremlin is planning a 2.34 trillion ruble (about $35 billion) stimulus aimed at Russian banks. The sanctions are definitely hurting Russia right now.

Of course, this won’t mean anything if Ukraine doesn't roll back the rebels soon, and I mean soon. Ukraine’s economy right now is in the tank. Its currency, the hryvnia, is at an all time low, and the Ukrainian government is considering cutting off utilities in rebel held areas. With the economy being so strained by the fighting, Ukraine is asking for monetary aid from western countries. Don’t get me wrong, Russia’s economy isn't doing to hot either, but its more likely to outlast Ukraine’s if things continue.

And believe me, things will continue. Both sides have too much to lose to back down. Ukraine is fighting to keep itself whole, and Russia has too much to lose by backing down after all that posturing. Of course, there’s a more rational reason for why Russia wants eastern Ukraine. Historically, Russia has been brutally invaded from the west (remember World War II?) and a buffer would be ideal in case another invasion ever happens. In Russia’s mind, letting go of Ukraine is letting go of something that could save them in case of another European war.

Then there are the rebels. They've said many times that they are willing to fight to the man to make Donetsk (the area of main fighting) its own autonomous region. Given how close eastern Ukraine identifies as Russian, this is understandable. Even if Russia stops supplying the rebels, they’ll go on fighting with a zealous determination. They’re just as dedicated to their cause as the Ukrainian government forces, which is pretty terrifying.

With all this in mind, its easy to see Ukraine as the starting point of another World War. National sovereignty is a cornerstone of an international society, and violating it is not something that can go unpunished. While the west is hesitant to get involved in a war with Russia, they will ultimately have to if things continue to escalate. This may sound like chest-thumping war mongering, but the reality is that if Russia continues its policy of expansionism at the expense of other nations’ sovereignty, then they will have to be stopped. In a day and age were the entire world is interconnected, national sovereignty is a must.

I’m not advocated for going to war with Russia, but I think its a very real possibility, and we are quickly running out of other options. At this point, I think the best thing outside of sending troops into Donetsk is spending monetary aid. Since the US is already supplying government forces with armored trucks, we should focus on making sure Ukraine’s economy doesn't go totally belly up. I certainly don’t want to see a war in Europe, but in order to avoid it, we’ll have to get involved, even if we don’t want to.

Note: Wow, this wasn't very liberal, was it? Don’t worry, it can only go left from here. I chose to write about Ukraine mainly because its an issue close to me; a friend of mine has a boyfriend in Ukraine.