Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Worried About Virginia

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

If you thought my satire about a Virginia referendum to reject suffrage was too hyperbolic, check out what Rachel Maddow has to say about Virginia’s newly elected governor and attorney general:1

Excerpts: (starting at about 1:00)

Virginia… elected an attorney general named Ken Cuccinelli, who has called being gay “intrinsically wrong,” and has said that it does not comport with natural law….2

…Virginia’s new governor-elect Bob McDonnell just a few years ago said that certain homosexual conduct could and should disqualify a person from being a judge because of violating Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law.3

  1. To clarify: I’m not calling what Maddow said as hyperbolic. I’m saying that my satire might not be as “out there” as it might seem at first glance, as there’s plenty of evidence that McDonnell and Cuccinelli are both noted regressionists. [<]
  2. See Shannon questions Cuccinelli’s stance on gay employees, Richmond Times Dispatch [<]
  3. See Sex Law Is No Judging Criteria, Daily Press [<]

Brownback Introduces Human Physical-Mental Enhancement Prohibition Act

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today with Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced the Human Physical-Mental Enhancement Prohibition Act of 2009.

“This legislation works to ensure that our society recognizes the dignity and sacredness of human life,” said Brownback. “Affixing artificial limbs to humans, and enhancing various human organs with surgery or drugs, which can permanently alter the integrity of an organism, will challenge the very definition of what it means to be human and is a violation of human dignity and a grave injustice.”

The Human Physical-Mental Enhancement Prohibition Act would ban the creation and application of human enhancements. Human enhancements are defined as alterations to human beings by use of prosthetic limbs, cyberware, or mental or physical stimulants by way of injected or orally taken drugs that have a permanent or semi-permanent effect on the mental or physical abilities or features of a human being. The bill is modest in scope and only affects efforts to maintain naturally or accidentally-occurring human integrity. It does not preclude the use of drugs or enhancements to those specific key humans who play an important role in our spiritual and political maintenance and development.

Brownback continued, “This legislation is both philosophical and practical as it has a direct bearing upon the very essence of what it means to be human, and it draws a bright line with respect to how far we can go in attempting to modify and enhance the abilities of human beings.

“The issue is that when you make changes in the natural order of things, such changes are established as precedent. You could make a change now that could be passed along to the rest of humanity. We do not know what the full effect of this could be, and it could be disastrous. Take, for example, male “enhancement.” Imagine if we let this affront to all that is natural go unhindered — all the available women would have no choice but to succumb to the will of these enhanced men, leaving none of the women for the rest of us. That would end up in marital disaster for a nation that prides itself on its statistically solid family values, and the breeding that results would effectively eliminate the pure among us.

“Also consider the effect that artificial limbs, often enhanced with modern cybernetics, could have on sports as well as the disabled who choose to remain pure. Imagine a baseball pitcher who has his arm replaced with a bionic arm. That would be incredibly unfair, and it would cause a chain reaction where all players would be tempted to make such enhancements — just look at what steriod use has done, for example. And the effect that this would have on the disabled who do not or cannot afford to make these upgrades is telling. Society would quickly adapt to the concept that being disabled is a choice, and we would lose precious laws meant to protect the disabled and give them opportunities to interact with the non-disabled in a reasonable manner, such as being able to eat out at a restaurant that is ramp-enabled.

“Tampering with the human state could be the equivalent to setting a time-bomb that might detonate many generations down the line; but once it is set, there is no reversing course.

“I am optimistic that our nation we will make a sound choice for the generations to come.”1

  1. Hat trick? [<]

Congress Passes Art Critique Law

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

DC – Congress, on Monday July 13, 2009, passed what’s been nicknamed the “Critique Bill.” It’s currently before President Obama, and there is no indication that he will veto the controversial bill. The bill, officially titled the “Artistic Expression Protection Act,” would make it illegal to criticize works of art… any work of art under penalty of fines up to $35,000. It also has provisions regarding libel, but the controversial aspect lies in the Critique Clause.

Here is an excerpt:

Section 16

(1) A person who publishes or utters any statement critical of art or the product of artistic expression shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding $35,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters a critical statement if (a) he or she publishes or utters a statement that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held very important by any artist, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that artistic genre, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the said statement, to cause such outrage.

Section 17

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offense under section 16, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorizing any member of the New York State Police to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offense related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the NYSP of all copies of the statement to which the offense related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the NYSP.

When Congress first started deliberating the bill over a month ago, Obama had this to say in regard:1

The United States and artists around the world should have a relationship based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and art are not exclusive and need not be in competition. To this end, the The Artistic Expression Protection Act will be a tour de force, setting an important precedent for the rest of the world to show that America cannot and will not be intolerant of its artists and of artistic freedom.

When asked about the possibility that the bill conflicts with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, President Obama declined to answer directly, only reiterating his trust in the legislative process.

Reaction from other nations varies. President Sarkozy denounced Obama’s willingness to concede to those who would stifle free speech in any form, saying, “Obama could learn from France’s tolerance for any and all forms of artistic expression. France is, of course, the foundation of modern art.” 2

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, on the other hand, expressed dismay that the bill was not inclusive enough to be effective. “Generations from now,” he said, “they will look back upon this day not as a positive precedent, but, instead, as an embarrassment. Imagine having to pass a new law each and every time one can imagine a particular person’s point of view could be offended. That’s incredibly inefficient and a waste of resources, and England would have no such thing.”

When asked what he meant by that, the Prime Minister shrugged and responded, “Our government will be foregoing the tedium and needling of individual, overly-specific instances of offense, and will be, instead, covering all potential offenses with a blanket law protecting everyone’s right not to be offended, not just artists.”3 His statement substantiated recent rumors that Britain was on the verge of passing yet another set of surveillance-style laws meant to protect its citizens from themselves.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor was asked during her congressional hearing yesterday whether, if a case regarding violation of the Artistic Expression Protection Act came before the Court, her past brief experience as a freelance painter would have an effect on her ruling. Judge Sotomayor indicated that she could not make a judgment at the hearing based on a hypothetical situation regarding a law that has yet to be passed, and that the role of the Supreme Court was not to pass personal judgment, but, instead, to evaluate the merits of each case in light of the law.4

Despite her neutral demeanor, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized by left-wing pundits. Keith Olbermann, for example, had this to say last night:5

Isn’t it obvious that Judge Sotomayor will be influenced by her past, especially with regard to art? I’m shocked that Congress let her off the hook on this one so easily. Hello, Congress!?! Next, they’ll be giving her a medal for telling Congress that she doesn’t see “black and white.”

From the artistic point of view, Professor Henri Rollings from the Philadelphia School of Art was enthusiastic about the bill’s inevitable passage.

Protecting artistic freedom from criticism ensures that artists will be unhindered by the rest of society and by free-thinking radicals who wish only to stifle expression with their unwarranted attacks on artists. Protecting artists from being harmed just because of their art is a return to the respect that artists had traditionally. Art is very important, and people need to realize that, even if they have to pay a fine and serve some jail time.

Opposing the bill is a small group of non-artists who have said that art cannot be protected from criticism, as that would be what non-artist activist Mike Straphorn calls a “slippery slope”:

First it’s art, but what makes you think it will stop there? Next it’ll be sports or something, and any time you want to make a comment like what a foul-up Richie Ashburn was, you’ll get fined or maybe imprisoned. That’s a crock of sh*t! Nothing should be free from criticism. Nothing is sacred. Well, except maybe religion, but that’s different. People get really offended when you screw with their beliefs. Everything else, though, is up for grabs.

Obama is expected to sign the bill today.6

  1. Not really. [<]
  2. Sarkozy’s got his burka in a wad. [<]
  3. He might as well have. [<]
  4. No, she didn’t. [<]
  5. No, he didn’t. [<]
  6. No one ever reads footnotes. Oh, you want the straight dope? Here ya go. [<]

Pot-ential?

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Drug Czar

Despite Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s admonition that marijuana will still be federally outlawed regardless of the reduction of “war on drugs” rhetoric, there appears to be an increase in legal measures both at a state and federal level to legalize pot within the next few years, or at least severely reduce penalties for distribution.

According to SFGate, California’s budget crisis and increased public support are tipping the scales regarding pot legalization. The efforts include a July ballot measure in Oakland to create a cannabis tax category and hearings in the fall on a bill for decriminalization. The bill would allow limited cultivation, sales, and personal possession, but pro-decriminalization groups like TaxCannabis2010.org, estimate billions of dollars in sales tax revenue gain if marijuana is legalized.

Of course, even if California manages to legalize marijuana, the federal government still outlaws it. Activists hope that successful state initiatives will motivate change in the federal government, and the underlying states’ rights issue might set a tone conducive to the constitutional ideology of allowing states to grant greater freedoms to its citizens despite federal efforts to impose.

This dynamic is evident in the same-sex marriage issue today — some states are legalizing same-sex marriage while bills are being proposed in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw it. The concept of infringing upon freedom was played out to great detriment when the federal government passed the prohibition amendment, The Noble Experiment manifest in the 18th Amendment, later repealing it with the 21st Amendment. Today, marijuana legalization opponents argue that states’ rights should trump the federal government in issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights, while arguing that the federal government trumps state sovereignty with regard to personal use of marijuana.

While this interplay carries on, the sting of the federal prohibition against marijuana has already become less severe with Obama’s new pot dealer policy. Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the feds would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and that states would be able to set their own marijuana laws. Regardless of such sentiment, the feds are still convicting and imprisoning dispensary owners.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed over a year and a day prison sentence to a medical marijuana dispensary owner as an act of leniency, instead of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for dealing in marijuana. This perpetuates the state-given rights versus federal prohibition issue, but it does establish some precedent and indication that, as Kerlikowske suggested, the tone of the drug war is being overtly and quickly lowered. What to watch for next is if California does legalize personal use, whether the federal government will conform to Holder’s assertion that states will be able to run their own show with regard to marijuana law.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Whine About It

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Says the Supreme Court.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays and lesbians1 from serving in the U.S. military.

Thank God. I was really beginning to worry that the military was going to start redecorating foreign nations instead of slaughtering their denizens. Now I feel much more secure knowing that our borders are being protected by real men and nearly real women.2

No, no. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with “our troops.” I’m not an anti-patriot. I am a former Marine, remember? I have the utmost respect for the military establishment as it stands to protect my rights. However, I don’t respect the people who run it. Nor do I respect Commanders in Chief who wuss out at a great opportunity to eliminate this absolutely atrocious, discriminatory, and often fatally harmful policy that, among other antiquated and puritan laws, segregates and by definition punishes people for even the hint of being unlike the religiously accepted “norm.” The policy is brutal. It tells the world that we don’t respect homosexuals. That even though we humor them with regard to their fashion sense, their music, and, in some states, their desire to acquire officially recognized relationships, we don’t trust them with a rifle in a uniform. What the fuck?

When I was 17, I got myself emancipated after I graduated high school so that I could join the Marines. Something struck me as rather silly. When I marched across the parade deck at graduation, a full-fledged United States Marine, I was still 17. I wasn’t even the age of majority. I couldn’t buy a beer in 99% of the U.S. I couldn’t buy a pistol. I even doubted my ability to vote (it’s still 18, right?). Yet, my government gave me a loaded rifle and said, “Go fight for your nation.” And I did, proudly. But what kind of principles has a nation got that it would send its children into war, yet restrict them from drinking a beer? Heck, I could have seen bloody slaughter in combat and yet I wouldn’t have been allowed in a theater to see an NC-17 movie.

What I’m trying to say here on what might seem a tangent is that this nation’s puritan ideology is hampering our ability to think and act reasonably and rationally as a nation. It’s embarrassing, cruel, and pointless, and we need to quit it. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is just another in a series of such idiocy.

  1. Honestly, what’s the difference between a gay and a lesbian? [<]
  2. They’re still not allowed to go into combat, you know. [<]