Changes

Cue David Bowie. Cha-Cha-Changes.

Because I am now working on a Podcast, Mr. Kunza Speaks. A lot of the old content here will no longer fit the direction that I am going in. Read it and laugh at all the bad writing and half thought out posts.

I hope that you will enjoy my new podcast. I may write something from time to time but for here on out the focus of this blog will be my Podcasts.

Thanks for the support everyone.

Mr.Kunza Looks at the news for you: Obama supports same sex marriage

Here is a new thing I am going to try. I will look three English language news sites and compare and contrast their reporting on breaking news story.

Here is the topic: Obama supports same sex marriage. An easy enough topic and here are the sites that I will be look at.

ABC News

BBC News

Fox News

I tried to find the report that came out around the same time that the story broke. However, a lot of these pages have been and likely will continue to be updated so this applies to around 19:15 GMT or 2:15 pm EST.

We start off with the guys and gals that broke the story. ABC News, we get the video of interview in which he made his support of same sex marriage know. Well what is he says is: "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

You know what is nice about this we get the full transcript of the video. Right after the little blurb that sums up the story and tells who did the interview. It's nice then they go and say hey we got more of this interview airing on two of our other shows. A nice plug. Likely nothing as juicy as the as the lead but one should expect some good ratings for these two programs (I will look up the ratings on a later date to see if this happens).

Also right below the plug for the other shows we get a summary for parts of the interview that has not aired yet. Nothing shocking just some nice political back tracking that says more or less that he is cool with the gays but it still comes down to the states to make the effort. 

"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own."

Well okay maybe not as bold of statement as some would like. A bit like past American politicians saying "I think slavery is wrong up it is still up to the states to decide for themselves." So its really just a personal statement on how he feels on the issue. He has no plan to make sex same marriage legal.     

Carrying on then we get a link to same video at the top of the page but this one is two the ABC News on-line video archive. Well okay thats a little odd. Maybe they expect to change or take off the top video at some point. Just so you know if you do click on it you get an ad before every video and plays a play-list of news videos by default so better pause or exit out after you have the video you want.

Okay really it's fine for all I know it could be some type of ABC News text ad that leads you to related news videos based on news you are reading now.

Then another video say how is kids helped shape his views. Then the rest is more or less about what he has said in the past about same sex marriage. Then right at the bottom we informed that Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage. The closing quote is from him: 

""My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Romney said. "That's the position I've had for some time, and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point. ... Or ever, by the way.""

Okay that is ABC take on it and they should own it after all they have the interview. ABC just went with the hot topic and kept talking about it. 

On to the BBC 

Well they keep updating it so thats nice.

We get a longer video then the one that ABC News has (57 secs to 2:12 mins). Nothing new just more of how he changed his mind on the subject. They point out that "He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage." Furthermore, right off the bat they point out that  Romney is against it.

So right away it is cast with the upcoming election in mind. They go as far to highlight that a lot Obama's side is for same sex marriage. Making very clear that in this election we have one side for marriage and the other against.

Thats what the story is about. It has a poll that says half of those poll are fine with same sex marriage and 48% of those polled said no.

All of this story is about how it relates to the upcoming election. They state how 31 states have laws against it and how NC is just the latest one.

The BBC news is for a British market so it makes sense that this how they would write the story. The sitting President said he is for marriage, the other guy is not, and here are some states that have banned it. So it is really just analysis.

Alright analysis but nothing more. 

Fox News. Oh Fox News honestly I expect something awful from them. But what to get. Well nothing really all that bad. All in all we end up with about the same stuff ABC news and hint of BBC report. However, for about 1/3 of the report Fox keeps point out that hey those Republicans are all against same sex marriage. Also, we get something new. The Black vote. They point out that conservative blacks will not like this and may not bother to vote because of it.

Which is a fair point to make. However, it seems a little pointless. It comes across more as a moral boost for the Republican faithful. You know what this is how Fox's story comes across. Hope for the  Republicans that they guy they are not all that crazy about may really have a shot now and that if you do not like the idea of sex same marriage never fear the  Republican are not about to change their mind on the subject. 

In closing. This is quick little post I would have gone to more sites but I did not have the time and I wanted to get this done as quick as I could.

But here is my input for what it is worth. 

I do not care. Yes it is nice that Obama is cool with same sex marriage but it is just him talking. Nothing more than that. It give hope to those that want to see same sex marriage legalized. Those may in turn give their support via money, time, and/or vote to Obama now. But I tend to think that those people where going to vote for him anyway. While at the same time to those that care a lot about keeping it illegal well here is another reason to not vote for him. But I do not think that they where going to anyway. Furthermore, I do not think that this will mean that they are going to crazy for the other guy. 

So to sum it up. Obama energizes some of his supports and maybe gets some more involved. He does not really lose much since after all it is just his opinion and he can always fall back on that.

All this news over a subject that in a Pew Research Center survey came in last as a "very important issue" for this election year.    

Abortion Part 2

I googled Pro-Life in order to understand by people are against Abortion. I looked at only the first page of results. Since this is the most popular information available. 

Here are the sites that I looked at:

Prolifeinfo.org

Nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

Prolifeaction.org

Lifenews.com

I really could not find a list of reasons for them wanting to outlaw Abortion. While the Prolifeinfo has information on it and the best I can find as to reason to be against abortions was this: 

"Pro life movements support the life of the child in the womb, with the understanding that life begins the moment the child is conceived. In the eyes of the pro life movement, each child that is aborted has been murdered, which is a child in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of many religions."

And on life news I found this:

"So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman."

My first reaction to the person that wrote that was was 'well you are an ass hole'. Why do I say such a thing because for lack of a better word you have to be such a big dick to say about another person that you have never met. It is a cold lack of respect that this person is showing to their fellow humans. The most   horrendous violence, I fail to see the point. But I will get more into this later on.      

So on to the Pro-Life Action League which states the following:

"The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.

We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.

However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.

In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.

Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances."

I know a lot of text to sum it Abortion is murder. Alright I am going to say that is big reason why you should be against abortion, to put it crudely, is baby killing. To those that want to make abortion illegal an abortion is equal to murdering a child. At lest that is the point I got after reading their publicly made information found of the listed popular anti abortion site. They believe that thing growing the womb is a 'human person' and that having an abortion is killing a person.

Okay point taken. So if abortion is murder then so a miscarriage or a still birth. Furthermore, it is murder if a twin dies early in the pregnancy and the other twin grows and absorbs it. Point is anytime a pregnancy does not yield a healthy child it is murder according to the anti-Abortionist. No they do not say that but it is the same logic. If it is murder when a doctor ends a  pregnancy how is not murder when mothers body cannot support a baby.

I understand a Doctor has to follow a medical procedure to a end pregnancy. That is why it is murder. But if a womans own body does the following it must at lest be called manslaughter the end result is the same. If a pregnancy ending with the aid of Doctor is murder then a still birth is also. 

It is a crude and aggressive statement to fault out call abortion murder. It is just mean, if someone thinks that way that is fine. However, the issue is when that becomes the single point of the augment.

All an abortion does is end a pregnancy. That is it. It does not take much of a detailed look into pregnancy to understand what is going on during a pregnancy. A  pregnancy is fertilization and development of one or more offspring. What needs to be pointed out is that under the child is born exists in a state of potential human life. It is not human life in and of itself. To make this claim is a failing to understand the prenatal development.

Here is a simple way to think of the subject. A woman tell you the following "I have one child" you reply "How old is that child" and she says "Around Four months since I am 4 months pregnant". I believe must people would find it odd to claim you have a child when you have not yet given birth to it. But if that woman has a abortion is it killing a child.

Often these groups are married to the idea that life begins at conception. Even foolish law makers have passed laws saying as much. Again the words 'ass holes' come to mind. Again I am going to have to be rude but they are saying that the moment when a man cums into a womans vagina a human life begins.  So saying that life beings at  conception is saying that life beings when the sperm mets in the vagina and then the egg.     

Now that is just a silly thing to say. One just because a woman had sex with a man does not mean that she will get pregnant. Yes, sex is how babies get made the old fashioned way but it does not work all the time. Even if ones does not use any from of birth control sex simply a man via is penis placing sperm into a vagina. After that the sperm tries to make it to the egg and then the sperm tries to get inside of  the egg. 

If that is when human life starts then once again anyone that has ever had sex has killed a lot of people. Because under this logic human life begins prior to conception. After all each sperm and egg cell is existing before and for quiet sometime after sex. So saying that life beings at conception is foolish. 

Sperm is made by millions, eggs are made more or less by the month. If a woman has her period does that make her a kill of life after it is a wasted egg that can be a person. The same goes for sperm only one sperm needs to make to the egg. Are the rest dead people? Furthermore it means that male masturbation is a war crime for all the human life that is killed.      

When sentience comes these issues for some. However much of it seems to be clouded by the veil of bad logic. When was reading this websites I often found that they speak about sex in general often under a very ill light. The often say no sex outside of marriage and so on.

Now I am going to go a little off topic for the rest of this post. Because I think that these groups are really about sex at the end of the day. Many how, when, and why a person should have sex.

First off sex was around long before marriage and will carry on so long as their are people. To say sex outside of marriage is wrong is simply foolish and a outdated idea. Marriage is at its core about men, inheritance, and power. For a patriarchal society to work one must always know who a child's father is. After all one always knows who the mother is. The father on the other hand some doubt can be cast on it. Thus for inheritance of wealth or power it matters a lot. After all a man does not want leave his stuff to a child that is not his own.

Thus we end up with marriage a contract that says to the woman you can only have sex with this man and no one else for the rest of their life or until the man dies. Women were are still are killed or harmed if they break this contract or are even suspected of doing so. Marriage in America has changed with the times but the idea remains the same.

It is a bad idea. If you want to be someone and just that one person great enjoy your time together. However, if you longer want to be with them so what that happens. No person by law should be bound to another person for the rest of their life.

I often think that the reason why people are against abortion is that they see it as something of a tax on sex. Oh you had sex outside of marriage that pregnancy is the price that you pay for doing it. I often think that those that want to make it illegal think that it will stop sex and for lack better word 'whoring'. Oh you where a whore now you have to responsible because you are now a mother. Forgetting the key point that people love sex and that having a child will not stop a person from doing so.

Here is the simple reality of it all making something illegal does not stop it from happening. Abortions carry on because the simple fact is that people want and need them. Driving underground makes it unsafe and unaccountable.

Furthermore, Abortions mean that women can have children when they are ready. Meaning that they can offer their child a better life then they could otherwise. A unwanted child by mother that is too young or simply does not have the means to raise a child is already at a massive disadvantage. Moreover because of this abortions lower crime. "It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born."

Here is my point. Hate abortions if you want but damn it stop it. Just do not get a abortion. It is very easy thing not to do. But do not for moment think that it is a moral stance because it is not. Having or not having a child is not moral issue but a personal one.   

Abortion Part 1

I hate to say it right off the bat like this but I have a penis between my legs. Which in the abortion 'debate' is really important. Because I am male I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get pregnant. Meaning that I am in no way affected by the abortion debate. After all I am already born. Yes, I can get a woman pregnant however my addition is only so genetic information my body brews up by the thousands. Furthermore, I am person fully capably of loving another child even an unborn one. 

I cannot overlook the simple fact that it is not my body at risk nor is it my body that bears the joys and horrors of carrying a budding potential human around in them for under a year. All men are like me in this regard. In baby making men are nothing more than spectators. Our part in the creation of human life is short and sometimes fun for both parties involved. However, when it comes down to it the creation of life can be done with a turkey baster and some well kept semen. The truth is other an semen men are not needed much for a child to be born. Many children have and will be born by methods crudely named 'test tube'.

Point is that creation human life still needs semen but it really needs a woman to work.

So when it comes to abortion I have to bear in mind my biological place. Yes abortion can touch a man's life. Not in any direct bodily way. The only way a male is affected is by not having a  potential biological child. Granted this can have a deep psychological impact on a man. However it should never be forgotten that pregnancy always directly affects the life and body of a woman. Even if that woman has an abortion her body is still changed. A man can leave a pregnant woman. He can leave behind any and all responsibility for his part. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant. To just walk away in the same way that a man can is not possible for a woman. Her body is altered her life changed.

Simply put a man can never know what it is like be pregnant nor can we understand what an Abortion means to a woman.

Because of these simple biological truths I have always thought that men have little to no place in the  abortion debate. As men we risk little to nothing if Abortion ends up legal or illegal. We can flee from our responsibilities rather easily. Sure we made end up having to pay child support but that is just money. It is not our bodies on the line in any way.

So male politicians against abortion, sorry but yeah shut up. There is little to no place for men in this issue. We cannot get abortions so saying your against something that has no role in your life. Even someone like me that is for legal abortions I only show my support knowing that I risk nothing. I do it only because we all have to get over ourselves.

Abortion is not debate it is not something that should be democratically handled. A person has the right to their own body and right to make their choices for it. The body is the dictatorship of the person. It is not up for vote or political debate. It for the person and the person only to do what they think is best. We can judge but we do not have to live with the choice.

Part 2 coming soon

I may just join the two posts together once I get it done. Just bear with me.         

IPs are not People and Money is free speech

Some good news for those fear mass lawsuits by media companies. A New York Judge has ruled that an IP-address is not sufficient evidence to identify a copyright infringer. Since an IP does not collate to a person but to an account. While the account has an owner it is not possible to tell if the owner was using the account at the time any copyright infringement happened.

As the article puts it: "The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person".

This should take some of the steam out of massive lawsuits against copyright breakers. Mainly those that illegal download movies, tv shows, games, music, etc on-line. By no means will this stop the legal action against down-loaders. Even with the Judge reported to have said in his  recommendation that: 

"[M]ass-BitTorrent lawsuits a “waste of judicial resources.” For a variety of reasons he recommends other judges to reject similar cases in the future."

A lot of this is by-product of an industry that simply did not or could keep with the changes in technology. Rather than make it simple to download music or other media many of these companies have overlooked or at lest did not make much of a serious effort to embrace new technology. Many have stood by their guns and kept to the old media models as their users moved more and more away from that very model. 

It is all very silly and a waste of everyones time. A good article on this topic can be found here. No need to rehash it since it makes a lot of the same points that I was going to.

Citizens United has brought out a lot of passions. It legal allows for  corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political campaigns via their own political groups (PACs, Friends of ___  and the such).

The simple fact is that Money has been equated to freedom of speech in America. Buckley v. Valeo is often cited as the landmark case as it stated that money is free speech and that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns. Since that ruling in 1976 courts have upheld the idea that money is a from a free speech. All people (citizens at lest) in America  have freedom of speech and spending your money is freedom of speech. 

So if I want to spend my own money on an ad that says I think that the mayor of my town is jerk then I have that right.

But Citizens United allows for corporations to do what only people could do in years past.  

Well corporations are people and that was been a legal fact for quite some time. Justice Marshall explicitly stated as much back in 1823 in Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet:

"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

One can many more ruling relating to corporations being people across the American legal landscape. The idea of corporations having some of the same rights as people is nothing new nor should it be viewed as something unexpected.

Why should it not be unexpected it makes the legal life of corporation a lot simpler since they can sue another person and make legal contracts just as if they where a human. In fact had it been for the past 200 odd years of legal rulings on the matter they would be no lawsuits against the downloaders of today. 

Getting back to my title, which is my point, IPs are not People and Money is free speech. 

We have entered an odd world legally speaking. In this world what is and is not a person or what can and cannot be directly linked to another person it proving to be quite a tricky thing legally. 

Here is fun thought can an IP address, no name no other means of contact, send unlimited money to a political campaign. 

Yeah okay that may not be as fun as I thought but still it may very well come up one day in a court.

We have reached a nice point in history our technology has changed everything from the top the bottom. Wiki Leaks means that cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers) will no longer happen. Short of completely shutting down the Internet suppressing information is no longer possible. Trying to control it is costly and often high infective.

As this is happening in America we are seeing the old media becoming untied under a few corporate banners. Also other groups are using their new found freedom of speech to flood the old media with their political message. Clouding it up they are attacking those that freely sent out their content over the Internet. 

The American legal system nor is political system is really ready for this. Attacks, information, and well to be frank truth comes from the Internet via a nameless IP. Now the old media may very well try to hide but for those that wish to look with ease they can find the information. Furthermore is legally difficult to track back the to person that uploaded the information also once something is out there countless sources can host and reproduce the information. Making it costly and nearly impossible to stop the spread of the information.

It is a brave new world that we are a part of. Censorship is no longer an easy affair. Propaganda is losing its effectiveness. Even with all the money the Internet allows for any voice to heard. As the old world is being bought up and craved up among a few corporations. They true power is vested in fading world. A world thats day to day impact on the lives of people grows less and less. 

     

Truth and a Gay Guy

Whenever I read something about how bad being gay is or how evil the government is or even how the republicans are being big dicks I always remind myself a bit of wisdom someone once told me: "No matter what never think that you know the whole story about anything. There is always a piece missing. Even if you find it all it does reveals more missing pieces."

Fox ran a story titled "Christian Teens Say Gay Activist Made Girls Cry". I had already watched the video before on Reddit. At the time I did not think much about it. He was simply pointing some facts about a holy book that are true. Take it for whatever that means. Not to sound mean but faith does not really care much about the truth outside of its own brand.

The students walked out did so because, well they did. I do not like people speaking for me so I will try to do others the same. But the Fox News story does have one person who left explaining why they left. "Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit." 

That's cool but it is not an answer. Okay it is one but it makes little more sense then saying I was simply following the prompting of my cat. If you have seen the video you see people leaving the room as soon as he says "The Bible".  

We are all people here and the thing about people is that we really do not like to be proved wrong. It is not self reflection but a truth. It is being studied and it is called the "argumentative theory of reasoning" more or less we care more about being right then truth. 

Christians think of their faith in glowing terms. It is the one true faith. God is real and Jesus loves you. All very old ideas. Modern Christians like to play up how fluffy and caring their faith is. Also, how mortal it is. They say the Bible was written by God and is the highest moral standard. 

But then some Gay Guy reads the damn thing and points out that is says it is cool to own slaves. It does not hint at it or mudded through it. Nope, it flat out says slaves are great own em. 

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Even the hipper New Testament is fine with the idea. In fact it says if your own is a Christian you should work harder for your master. 

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)" 

But a lot of good people overlooked this part of their faith and the words in their own holy book. It is a fact that Quakers and a lot of other Christians fought against slavery back when slavery was legal and common. Risking life and limb to end it. But it is also a fact that Christians that owned slaves and used the bible to support them owning another person.  

Alright back to my point. Humans have this bad habit of hating to be proved wrong. It is embedded in us. Whenever someone points out that we are wrong we tend to react like this people did in the video. We leave unwilling to hear out the other side because we already are right and what they are saying is wrong so why even bother.

It is a habit that all of us need to break. We are all collectively dumb and helpless. Even the best Action hero does make their own guns or are self trained by wolves. Humans sorry we all need to get over ourselves, use our minds, and listen. We do not have to like what we hear and we do not have to hear everyone out but as a rule we need to start thinking more about why we believe what we believe and less about how right we are.

The truth is always there even if we do not know it. Truth is a solid point of reality. Even if we believe something to be true that does not make it so. Truth is just that truth it does not rely on our thoughts or opinion it simply is. We humans need to start driving towards truth and not avoid it.

Truth really does matter. Reality does not care about us. Truth is our only tool against everything. We are alone without a net spinning on big rock in the middle of void. We are just chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Truth is all we have. It why the houses we build do not fall in on us. It is why we know how to make fire. It is how we fight off illnesses we cannot even see.

We all have to stop trying to be right and comforting what is true.         

    

Why the Rich Rule

I am at a loss for who said it but I remember someone once said. "There are only five jobs in the world Healers (Doctors, EMT, and the like), Builders, Educators, Farmers, and Protectors (Cops, judges, and military). All the rest is bullshit for money.

Politics soundly falls into the bullshit for money category. While I could not find any data about the amount wealth that a congress person had before they where elected into office and what they have after they leave office. Even term to term wealth changes could not be found. Likely a good thesis could be done on such a topic.

But there is information out there on how Congress gets richer as average American loses. Nothing all that shocking there in fact it think people would naturally expect such a thing. As the old saying goes with power comes wealth. Also, the simple truth is that just to run for any political office calls for good amount of money or the backing of those that do.

The simple fact is that those with money always lead. Poor people do not rule. Look at South Africa post-apartheid. Once they African National Congress got into power the leadership quickly became very wealthy. What is shocking is that despite a far amount of research into the topic I could not ever find one time in which person who was poor left power  peaceful and was still poor. Even Cincinnatus the icon civic virtue and restraint was a rich man before we was in power and stood rich afterward. The Dalai Lama while in and out of power was and is no poor holy man.

So the question is why. Why is is this a universal human standard?

I think it is because money and power are drugs. The most addictive drugs known to humanity. Just a simple taste of power and wealth corrupts body and mind more than the most powerful narcotic. It changes the reality of the user with such a force even the strongest moral being is crushed under its weight.

Even if you think that a person can hold their grown against the taint of wealth and power. Those around such a person will fall into its pits. Causes such a person to fall down to their level if only for a moment. Think about it you have lots of money and you a mayor of a small town. Your sister uses your name to get a loan for a house that she ends up being unable to pay for and calls on you to save her from foreclosure. Perhaps not dramatic but think that person has the power over another person in such a way that it is hard to those without to understand. For someone to so easily change another's fate is not something to be taken lightly.

Think about it the first time you can just buy a nice car with the same ease of mind as someone buying a pack of gum. Or how you would feel with someone coming to you knowing that you unquestionable power over them. You can change their life or damn them. How can a being walk away from that unchanged. 

Even if the person uses their wealth and power for good. Their reality is not one of the rest of the world that is simple trying to get by. Their is no just get by with wealth and power. With such things comes options that the rest of us simply do not have. How can a person not change under such a reality?

Whats the answer. It is not an easy one but it needs to be said. Those with power and wealth need to be watched and legal power holding them in check. They are addicts and need to be seen as such. We need to hold them to a higher standard. Power watch dogs need to be in place to guard against human nature. Those with power cannot hide behind such power their actives need to be public and known to all. Who they see what is said has to be recorded and make public knowledge no secrets no hiding. For these people hold power over us all we need to know what they are doing in our name.       

NC Amendment One - Part Two

On issues like this both sides should be heard out. It is only fair, since the simple truth is that for a lot of people this issue matters more to them than anything else. For some reasons moralist and those that view themselves as such have really taken to this Amendment. I have looked at what those in favor of the Amendment are saying. Their support is will meaning but flawed for many reasons.

I looked up the two largest organizations that where for the Amendment. N.C. Values Coalition and Vote FOR Marriage NC for information about the reasons for for the Amendment.

N.C. Values Coalition was founded in 2011 and takes on more issues then just the Amendment one can what causes they have taken on here. While I will be just focusing on their stance for the Amendment their issues do make for a fascinating read. Namely the part in which they say that "We also believe that private business owners have the right to refuse service to customers on the basis of their religious faith." I can only think that it is a misguided move to say such a thing. It does nothing but create a needless firestorm as people can and will put out that smacks of every kind of hatred imaginable. My religion says I cannot sell to Jews and you look like one so I will not sell to you or Hey my faith says blacks are bad so don't shop here. It does not seems like wise company to keep.

Nevertheless,  N.C. Values Coalition stance for the Amendment is simple enough to understand:

"Marriage in North Carolina is under attack and needs protection. Although our current laws define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit persons of the same sex from marrying, these statutes are subject to being overturned either by judges or by future legislatures. North Carolinians do not want to leave the issue up to a future legislatures that might impose gay marriage on them without a popular vote of the people. ..Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina very soon. We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don't have it in our face every day for the next ten years."

I dislike with a passion the idea that marriage is 'under attack'. It sounds like roving gangs of people are beating up married couples or burning marriage certificates. It also brings to mind the notion that the government is trying to pass laws that will ban marriages. Granted this is not what they are talking about. It is a term that shows up time and time again in the same sex marriage debate. They stand behind the idea it is some how an 'attack' to be inclusive and give legal rights to same sex couples. But that is not what the issue is here. It needs to be stated again that not passing the Amendment is not a vote for gay marriage. Same sex marriage will still be illegal.

Anyway with the statement "Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina" it appears that the NC Values Coalition are trying to fight against the shadowy forces threatening the future by legal or political action. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Using fear without reason to get what you want, in this case to pass a bad Amendment. Fear is not a good enough reason to do anything let alone pass an Amendment that will forever change the state. The simple fact is that there is no threat. No law is being considered in the State house or Senate that would allow same sex couples to marry. None has ever been considered. So much for  legislative activism. 

The Coalition does make the following statement singling out judges: 

"Legislators who oppose a Marriage Amendment say our current law is sufficient to protect the definition of marriage without amending the Constitution. That excuse is just plain wrong! They ignore what has happened in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where judges have overturned statutes protecting traditional marriage and legalized gay marriage. An activist judge in North Carolina could overturn North Carolina's marriage laws."

Moreover it speaks to the ignorance of the legal system that the Values Coalition has to think that a judge can some how make a ruling that will suddenly allow for same sex couples to marry. It is against the law in NC full stop, no question about it, a judge interprets the law they do not make laws. This notion of 'judicial activism'. You can read an great opinion piece about how 'Judicial activism' is a convenient bogeyman. The simple fact is "in our system of government, courts are meant to be "bulwarks" of liberty, not rubber stamps for government power." To think that they some how bully citizens into following laws of their creation is simply not possible in sense that the NC Values Coalition is claiming.

I looked up the cases that they highlighted. While they do not name names or point to cretin cases I tried my best and I think I found out what cases they where talking about.

In Massachusetts "Judge Joseph L. Tauro, ruling in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, declared that the law “induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens’’ and “plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty, the ability to define the marital status of its citizens. This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status." 

Not much activism there. The judge said that the state makes the rules on marriage for the state.

As for Iowa nothing that extreme. Direct from the ruling itself: "In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." Furthermore, "Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

Boiling it all down.  The ruling stated that the court could find not good reason for why the state banned same sex marriage. Iowa has a standard called 'appropriate equal protection'. Meaning that all are protected by the law equally. So if a group of people are to lose or never get the legal protection of marriage a good reason needs to be found for why it was done. It is very damning to those against same sex marriage that they could not come up with a good reason for excluding same sex couples from the same legal rights to marriage as heterosexuals.

As for Connecticut the case played out much the same as Iowa. No good legal reason could be found for banning gay marriage. How often do people forget that in the court of law one has to prove their case. Let me say that one more time. In a court of law proof matters, legal proof. Just because you do not like it is not a good enough reason. You have to make a case and use logic.

Okay enough of that. On to the next points that the Coalition makes. What I found to be very odd is that they have this page that lists the benefits of marriage. Claiming all the positives:

"Promotes optimal health and success of children. Children need a mother and a father;[2] there is no substitute for either in a child’s life. Children from homes with a married mother and father are:

- Seven times less likely to live in poverty

- Six times less likely to commit suicide

- Less than half as likely to commit crime

- Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock

- Develop better academically and socially

- Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood [3]"

I followed the sources. None make the claim that the benefits of marriage are the exclusive domain of Heterosexual couples. All they compared was two parent households vs. single parent. In many ways the whole page simply highlights good reasons for the state to be inclusive to same sex couples. Why leave same sex couples out something to seems so beneficial? Should the sex organs of parent really matter that much. The Coalition says that their vision "is to take the initiative to preserve and promote families — the basic building block of society in North Carolina — on an economic, social and values level." Gay people have families. But for some reason a family group only cares about families so as they have mismatched sex parts.

I many ways this group demeans those that support their cause. By making outlandish claims and statements on many topics.

Now on the next group, Vote FOR Marriage NC. They are the milder one of the two groups and seems to be the most reasonable with their case being made with a clear head and some sense of reason. Here are some of their reasons why they are for the Amendment. 

"What is at stake in this debate are two competing definitions of marriage. One definition – advocated by same-sex “marriage” activists – would define marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender, with the law treating the parties’ genders as irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. The other definition, contained in the proposed constitutional amendment and reflective of North Carolina’s current law and the collective understanding of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

Because it is the way we have always done it is never a good reason to keep doing something. Women should have the right to vote because well that is the way we have always done things. No, I would give you that surgery we have always used a faith healer and we get by just fine. Societies change social standards evolve. It is simple fact of human life.

The History of Marriage is not a rosy one. For most of human history marriage was between one man and many women. There are still places around the world where this is true. What is now taboo for most societies was or is a fact of daily life. Also, for generations past often who you married was not your choice but rather one of your parents. This is still the case for many people. However, in modern times we see it as an attack on personal freedom. Really I could make this whole post about how marriage was sexist and more of a legal contract between families then one of love or even respect. Families would sell their daughters or arrange for babies to marry one another when they came of age.

The point is the definition of marriage has changed a great deal with time. Our view of it now is a oddity when compared to recorded history. Traditions change, peoples views on things change. It is a fact of life. When it comes down to it. It is easy to say well that is way it has always been done but that does not make it right or even a good idea to begin with.

Getting deeper into the issue Vote for Marriage says the following:

"Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction."

Okay they don't cite a source for this. It turns out that this claim is made by groups around the nation. But I like to look things up and found the following:

"Bottom line: the only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts (teachers) have taught about same-sex marriage."

Even if they do what is the issue? It is a fact of life for many children that their parents are gay. As it is for other children to be born to single mother, or live just with their father or another extended family member. The nuclear family is not the only type of family out there. Why should children not learn about other types of families. Why hide it? I fail to see what the issue is.

Carrying on:
"Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers."

Oh look I found a nice chart that covers all of this:

CLAIM	REALITY
“Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.”	The only example conservatives ever cite is a New Jersey Methodist pavilion, and that pavilion did not actually have a religious exemption.
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage.”	Catholic Charities have never been obligated to shut down their services, but have done so voluntarily when they are no longer subsidized by the state because they discriminate.
“Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.).”	Again, no group has been forced to close, though some may lose state funding. In one case, the Maine Catholic Diocese shuttered a homeless support agency as punishment for supporting marriage equality.
“Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution.”	Marriage equality or not, same-sex families are a part of all communities. To refuse to acknowledge their existence stigmatizes the children who are being raised by gay couples and deprives all young people of understanding the world around them.
“Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and New Hampshire are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.”	This is a red herring. When businesses are fined for not renting to same-sex couples, they are violating state non-discrimination policies, like in the case of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. Inns and reception halls should be no less publicly accessible than lunch counters and water fountains.
“Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.”	This is another red herring, as licensing laws and professional certifications have no connection to marriage laws. The 11th Circuit ruled last month in favor of a university that required a counseling student to affirmatively counsel LGBT clients.
“Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs… Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.”	No law has ever “penalized” opponents of marriage equality, but more importantly, there is no “strong majority” in support of the amendment. In fact, a December poll found that 56 percent of North Carolinians support at least civil unions — which this amendment also bans.

• Marriage Equality: North Carolina

Again the issue here is not should same sex couples marry. It is about the Amendment. All these groups keep pointing out the horrors of gay marriage. But I keep saying it same sex marriage is not legal in this sate. So really all of this is needless. What both of these groups are doing is confusing the issue. They are for a needless Amendment that will be fought out in the courts if it passes. It is going to be costly legal battle. The Amendment does little to really stop same sex couples and ends up hurting a lot of people. 

The real issue here is why. Why are we doing this as a state. Why are we so fearful of group of people that love and care of each other? Why is it such a threat? How can we call ourselves a nation of free people when we go after those who are exercising their personal freedom to love another. Why is there a need for extra legal protection that does no good and only cause harm. What does this say about us a people. Why should heterosexual nuclear family be the only type of family offered in this state? 

I cannot answer these question because I do not think there is an answer. We are all people all people should be free to live there lives. You do not have to like it or even respect it. But no one needs to attack someone that is causing no harm to others.    

NC Amendment One - Part One

For quite some time now North Carolina has had the distinction of being the only southern state without a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The state does have a law on the books which bans same sex marriage. But as of this date it has avoided  However, that unique status many change on May 8 2012. On that day an Amendment to the state constitution will be voted on state wide.  

The Amendment is not very long nor it is particularity complex. Here is what the voters will be voting on it its more or less in its entirety:   

"Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section. Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts." 

Here is the link to the proposed Amendment.

My employer is one of them many North Carolina business that has come out against North Carolina Amendment One. You can see a full list of other business opposed to the Amendment here. I cannot speak for my employer nor do I intend to. But I believe it speaks to how important this issue truly is. Our business has been in operation for over 18 years and had a strong tradition of staying outside of politics. I do not think that this was a move taken lightly on their part.  

I can only praise the businesses that have come out against  Amendment One. The move by my employer is completely understandable and logical. Personal feelings aside is make sense in the world of business:

"Over 89% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 95% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and 43% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression." (Source) 

The business world knows that it makes little sense to turn away the best talent available just because of their sex life. A business does itself no favor alienating potential workers over a personal matter that an employer has no reason to be involved with to begin with. It can only be called voyeuristic for a company to care so much about what happens in the bedroom.

It is very seasonable for a business should speak out against such matters. People are gay it is a simple fact and one that will not go away even if the Amendment becomes the law of the land. All it does is hurt businesses. Why would gay person want to work and start a life in a state that discriminates against them? Why would they want to buy a house and start a family in this state? How could anyone be expected to pay their taxes to the state that uses it own constitution ensure that they can never have the same legal rights as a straight couple? It is not sensible by any means to use a  constitution  turn away a group a people simply because you do not like what they do in the bedroom.   

Furthermore, it gives national and international businesses good reason to move their headquarters out of the state or avoid any major investment in the state out of fear that they could be viewed as supportive of the discrimination. It adds a needless barrier to doing business in this state.  Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign pointed this out in a statement:  

“Even in the most challenging economy, leading employers are forging ahead of federal and state law to recruit and retain a diverse workforce – regardless of employees’ sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. (Taking) steps to ensure all employees in their workforce are treated fairly today.”

Moreover the CEO of Duke Energy Jim Rogers put it rather bluntly:

“This is the 21st century, and we're competing with people around the world.We've got to be inclusive and open.”

He even went so far as to say:

“If this amendment passes, we’re going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years from now, and we’re going to think about that amendment the same way we think about the Jim Crow laws that were passed in this state many, many years ago."

Here one can see a list of companies that have spoken out national against such measures like the Amendment One. One should not expect these companies to seek out North  Carolina if the Amendment passes.     

It should not be North Carolina has one of the nation's best University Systems. Students the world over come here to be educated. But will they keep coming in the future if the Amendment passes. Again why would a gay student or educator want to make a life in this state if the state legally bars them form doing so? Why would a great mind that happens to be gay want to work for one of the Universities in a state that keeps them second class citizen. Status forced on them only because they share the same sex organs as the person that the love.

But it is not just gay people that are harmed by this Amendment. While the focus of the Amendment is clearly meant to be stance against gay marriage. It ends up taking many people as collateral damage regardless of the their sex life. It affects unmarried couples of any sexually orientation. A child of an unmarried couple does not have the same rights as one of a married couple. Furthermore, it adds one more needless and harmful layer to the legal onion that is domestic issues.  

The simple statement that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." This means that all other unions are null and void and have no legal protection. A widow/widower could lose retirement benefits because they spouse is no longer alive thus they cannot be married anymore. Do not think for a moment that a company would not try to use this to weasel its way out of paying out benefits to someone.

It effects children of unmarried couples in both legal matters and other basic issues such as health care. Since no legal protection can legally be offered to them in the state of North Carolina. Such worries where neatly summed up in a article by Shawn Long.

"They want to amend the N.C. Constitution - to eliminate the "all are equal" clause - to define marriage as the "only domestic arrangement" in the state, and only between a man and a woman. This seemingly benign phrasing is used in other states to prohibit domestic partner benefits. I could no longer offer health insurance to my partner of 16 years or our 9-year-old son. This would apply to all unmarried couples, gay or straight. It would also be used to challenge hospital visitation, wills and powers of attorney."

Moreover, it leaves unmarried couples at the mercy of the courts. Their legal rights would be left to the interpretation of judges.

Chris Fitzsimon, director of the progressive NC Policy Watch. Pointed out that even if the judges are fair and will meaning. It will still massively affect the NC legal system:

"What we have here is untested language that would need to be interpreted by the courts. At the very least, it will mean that our courts will be tied up for years trying to figure out what this law means for domestic violence cases. (Source) 

For more information (at lest better written information) about the ill effects of this Amendment check out this website: protectncfamilies.org 

Rommey and Crassus

I haven't been very good at keeping up with my blog. I tend to start writing about one topic but after all is said and done I find out that I have lost my away along all the mess of text and half ideas. But some ideas still stick more so then others. Looking back at my America posts I quickly realized that I have gone about it the wrong way. I won't delete them but they will stand as a reminder of a past time. 

Mitt Romney is very rich. Right now there is little doubt that he is using his own wealth to earn the Republican nomination.  Romney partly financed his campaign with his own personal fortune. We should expect this Romney wants to be president and is willing to put is own money where is mouth is. In way it almost commendable. 

I many ways I see Romney as a modern Marcus Licinius Crassus. Grant it is not a perfect comparison. Romney is not one of the richest men in history nor has he ever lead anyone into battle. But I feel the comparison is justified.

You can guess who is who right?

To grossly simplify Crassus was very rich what he wanted at the end was political glory. The only real way that a roman could get such political glory was on the battlefield. Thus, Crassus lead his legions to a failed invasion of Parthia and died along with his son  Publius who was a rising star a skilled commander.

How Crassus got his wealth was quite ingenious he had his own fire company. Whenever a building in Rome caught fire (some say he had those fires set) he would send out his fire company to buy the building that was on fire at cut rate prices. After the building was bought his slaves would put out the fire. While Crassus did have other investments farms and other things. This is what many historians like to point to as the way in which Crassus went from a rich man to the richest man. 

But being rich was not enough for Crassus he wanted power. If it was not for the military glory of Julius Caesar and Pompey he may have very well gotten it. But it was not to be he was out classed by the  Parthians and lost his head literally. The loss brought great shame to Rome. It lead to the fall of the Roman Republic and gave glory to her enemy Parthia.

     

So what does this have to do with Mr. Romney? Romney if elected would be among the nation's richest presidents. Romney made a lot of is own money by buying business and then selling them. Not quite like the fire company of Crassus but it has been pointed out that his company Bain Capital “apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars.” Perhaps a more modern take on the fire company.

I do not dislike Romney for this because it is Capitalism. Capitalism could care less about the worker or the 'everyday' person. As I said in past posts it is the system that we have and everyone seems to like it. Romney made his money and made money for his firm thus he was good at his job. In the eyes of Capitalism and the law what he did was fair. Companies made money for a select few those that work for it are replaceable and if you can get rid of them so you can make more money then you have 'won'.  It should also be pointed out that Crassus fire company was viewed as fair in the eyes of the Romans. Heartless but perfectly legal and the same goes for  Romney.

It is often thought that Crassus death and war was needless. His operations against Parthia, "aroused considerable opposition since Parthia had never done the Romans any harm. Ateius, one of the tribunes, tried to stop Crassus from leaving Rome. When the other tribunes did not allow Ateius to detain Crassus, he called down a formal curse on Crassus as he left the city (54)." In many ways Romney campaign can be seen in the same light. Few Republicans called for him to enter the race. His lack of support form the Republican party has reached the point of mocking. With the reason why he is gaining any of their support is because they have to have someone run against Obama.

It is hard to tell but as I read the histories on Crassus I often see him the same light as Romney. All in Rome knew how Crassus made his money. I cannot imagine that your typical Roman would have liked what Crassus did. Furthermore, Crassus had wealth which in any place or time in history means power. Outside of his wealth and family name Crassus had little to offer. In many ways his death may have been praised. Much like Romney (not that wish death for the man). I believe that few people truly like this man but he simply has the money to keep himself relevant as did Crassus.

Romney is like Crassus in another key way. Crassus went to war in many ways to be popular. Now it maybe a touch bold to say this but Crassus needed to be greater than his rivals. Two popluar men that stood for ideas and had the military power to back it. Thus war was only way in which he could get the popularity he so needed. The same can be said for Romney he wants to be President he believes that he can fix America. He sees it as the only way in which he can be effective. He is willing to sing whatever tune plays to the public he is willing to put up all his wealth to get the power that he seeks even if no one truly wants him to win. 

Romney like Crassus would be nothing without their wealth it was and is the only factor as why they made it as far as they did or are going to. Romney simply spends and spends to find whatever support he can. He seeks support like a thirsty man seeks water. Damn everything else. Romney has to be unclear about what he stands for and he will do as President. Because someone may not like what he has to say and he could lose their fleeting support. 

In the end I should not be to unfair to both this men. Crassus made it history books and will be talked about long after my death or likely the death of anyone reading this. However, Crassus did not make it to the history books as a man of ideas but as a man of wealth and in the end a man of epic failure. While Romney has yet to be a failure it should be pointed out that Romney is not a man of ideas. Romney is no great political thinker. After all Romney is not running ideas but on the fact that he is the other choice in the voting booth. Much like  Crassus was other man at the time in Rome.

As a said before it is not a perfect comparison and it may not even be a fair one. After all Crassus did lead thousands of men to their death for his vain glory. While the worst thing that Romney did is lead thousands of men to the unemployment line. After all is said and done Romney will win the nomination. Leading us to the horrors of endless political ads on television. I would like to think that Crassus would do the same.      

A Sinper and a French man

Toulouse gunman killed by sniper

If you follow current events any you probably hear about this. If not  to sum it up a 23 year old French citizen was shot by a sniper in Toulouse, France ending a standoff. He was the suspect in seven murders. At the time of him being shot he was attempting to flee the police after a shootout and siege that lasted thirty-two hours. Furthermore it seems that the shooter himself  claimed to have been trained by Al-Qaeda.  

I don't want to make light of this. The man is a suspect in seven cold blooded murders. Looking at what he is suspected of doing does not make for a peasant read. I do not want to get into to many details about the killings themselves. Horrible details have come up about the final moments of one of his victims that I will leave for the curious the google themselves.  

I have always found such things ghoulish, sicking, needless, and a invasion of privacy. I can only put myself in the victims shoes and think about how I would feel if it was me. I for one know that I would not want the whole world to know how I died in gory detail. I would not want everyone to know how my last fleeting moments of life where spent. Furthermore, that knowledge only helps build up the myth the murderer. A person that should be forgotten by all.

Above is an psychiatrists and Charlie Brooker's insightful perspective on news coverage's perpetuation of mass shooting that I feel applies here more then ever.

But that is not likely that this story is going to go away. It has all the hallmarks of a great news story. The final standoff plays out like the climax of an action movie with the suspect getting his blaze of glory and admitting to his crimes. Just before the supposed justice of a bullet found him. I have already rehashed it much here but the point is that is story has legs. Even American news outlets have made it a top story:

Fox News: Islamic Fanatic Dies in Shootout With French Cops. 

CNN: French terror suspect killed.

MSNBC: French school shooting suspect killed as raid ends standoff.

I point out that the media is calling this man a 'terrorist' since it appears that he, by his own admission, was  trained by Al-Qaeda. Thus allowing questions be asked like why did they not know about him. How could they have stopped him. It gives fuel to hate based politics allowing fear and hate to be spoken about publicly for a whole group of people. Look some right wing in America now has one more talking point. It allows for a message of fear to be seen a message of unity. "We stand with our French allies in this dark time and we will do all we can to put an end to terrorist." Also someone will say "Are there lone wolves in American and what can be done to stop them." This proves that the threat is real and radical Islam is out to get us.

Just one isolate event in France is going to set off a firestorm. I know that I am helping I am talking about it. That is the heart of the matter.

The point of Terrorism is to have people talk about it. Terrorist use fear and murder to get powers to react. Terrorist know that they can not fight a nation like another nation. There is no pitched battles no generals looks over points on a map trying to find the best course of action.

By this mans actions Al-Qaeda gets talked about. Al-Qaeda once again becomes seen as a real threat and power. Al-Qaeda will get recruits because of this. A group that Governments keep claiming to have delivered a death blow can now be said to be a force once more.

If you really want curve the force that is terrorism do not talk about it. Do not give it the space or the time. Call this man what he is another misguided murder and leave it at that. Because at the end of the day that is all he is and all he should ever be.