The Illusions of Freedom

    What with the shit-storm that has occurred over Sen. Todd Akin's comments via abortion, you'd think this blog would be about that.  But it's not.  I could say all manner of intelligent, thought-out, factually true arguments about being pro-choice (and NOT pro-abortion) but honestly, no one has ever managed to change anyone's mind politically unless they themselves are forced to live through the consequences of their beliefs.  There have been many women who were "pro-life"- heretofore referred to as the more accurate "anti-abortion"- who have become pro-choice after going through a situation themselves.  The reverse is also true.  However, the point comes down to this, as it does for all contentious matters- one side bases their beliefs on their own ambiguous moral fiber, facts and science be damned, while the other simply wants everyone to leave them the hell alone.
     So what I want to talk about is this notion of "freedom".  I've heard that word a lot this year, being an election year, along with "Constitutional rights" and various other tripe.  But I honestly don't think most people even understand the freaking concept.  Conservatives and libertarians want (or claim they want) a smaller government, or a government that doesn't interfere with their lives, or their beliefs.  We have the right to free speech, they say.  We have the right to religious freedom, they say.  No president should force us to do anything we don't want to do, damn it, because this is a FREE COUNTRY, they say.  
     The hell it is.
     As far as they are concerned, we have the right to free speech- as long as we're saying what they want to hear.  We have the right to religious freedom- as long as it's their religion.  No president should be able to force THEM to do what they don't want to do, but they have every right to legislate their beliefs-because apparently they are the self-appointed guardians to our morality.  If this were a free country, then gay marriage would be legal.  If this was a free country, the Republicans could never try to pass legislation that would outlaw abortion.  If we had religious freedom, then no one religion could ever take precedence over another- including the lack of one.  
    The case of the ex Marine who was making borderline terrorist remarks that resembled the ones Ted Nugent made that got ordered into psychological evaluation- his 1st Amendment rights are being violated.  The current "regime" hates the Constitution.  Except if the same thing happened in 2001, when Bush was in office, that Marine would have been labeled unpatriotic and they would be just fine with the detainment.  Free speech does not mean you have the right to say whatever the hell you want.  I am of course for any one protesting the government- as long as what they say isn't violent.  This Marine was taken in- not arrested, not facing criminal charges- because he made comments that were violent towards the government.  That cannot be protected, no matter who says it.  Ted Nugent should have gotten the same treatment, and I'm pissed he didn't.  We live in a scary time.  The shooter at Fort Hood was called a terrorist because he was an American who was also of Palestinian descent- they have not tied him to any organization, and they haven't proven what he did was politically motivated- but it probably was.  Are we not supposed to make sure that never happens again?  After Columbine, the ridiculousness of the measures taken to prevent other school shootings is still going on, and while it doesn't seem to be working, the measures are undertaken to keep us safe, whether some people like it or not.  
    The Constitution is not a blank check for bad behavior.  One party's belief system should not, and cannot be used to legislate everyone else.  Just because you think you know the truth does not mean that you do, especially when all of your "evidence" comes from a book written a thousand years ago.  I may think I'm right, but I don't think I should make the laws for everyone else, either.  I want the government to stay out of my uterus and stay out of everyone's bedrooms.  I want the government to do what is necessary to protect this country, even from its own people.  People have the right to believe and feel the way they want, but they should have the ability to keep it out of our laws.  
    And finally- stop pretending you believe in freedom when all you believe in is your own.

My Scholarship Essay

Absurdities into Atrocities

          In March of 2012, Pew Research Forum released the results of a poll that showed 38% of Americans believe that politicians are laying it on rather thick in regards to religion.  In a similar poll in 2001, that figure was 12%.  Surprisingly, 52% of Americans also say that religion needs to stay out of politics.[1]  While I personally tend to take most polls with a Buick-sized grain of salt, this is a refreshing trend, especially when noting that 38% of then Rick Santorum voters agreed with the sentiment.  However, this atmosphere of common sense is difficult to see when analyzing the big picture of legislation and politics.

            Karl Marx’s oft-paraphrased quote, “Religion is the opiate of the masses” is one of the basic truisms of mankind.  Church attendance rises during wartime and other times of great strife, as though God would stop war and divert that tsunami if only more people decided to forego football in favor of Mass.  The day Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich dropped out of the presidential race was a day of celebration for me; but there are dozens more zealots to take their place.  I watched with real terror when Mr. Santorum seemed to be a real contender to the GOP throne.  The irony of every word he spoke in favor of what amounted to a theocracy was obviously lost to him, but what frightened me was that it seemed to be lost to the mass of his followers.  During one campaign stop, Santorum said one of the most horrifying statements since Queen Mary I told England they all had to be Catholic now: “We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law”. 

            One only has to look to countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to see how well it works out when the government decides to legislate based on biblical codes.  The fact that Santorum was proposing Sharia Law here in the United States while in the same breath saying “…it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution” didn’t give any of the true-believers even a moment’s pause.  It is important to note that when these types of politicians talk about the importance of religion, they of course mean the importance of their religion; all other religions that are not Judeo-Christian in nature should be deemed the work of the devil.

            Rick Santorum is no longer slouching towards Bethlehem, fortunately, but the GOP’s heir apparent, Mitt Romney, is only marginally better.  Romney has said “In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. … It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism”.  Even ignoring the oxymoronic nature of the statement, his words bring forth the religious right’s most offensive misinterpretation- that they, rather than historians and everyone else, know what the Founding Fathers intended when they designed the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.  They deliberately ignore not just the history of the men themselves, but also the spirit in which the document was forged; the Founding Fathers knew the importance of not merely freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.  They clearly understood the danger inherent in having those in power believe they had the right to promulgate the integrity of man.

            Despite the fact that the nation’s attitude is seemingly swinging in the direction of sense, the religious right are not ones to give up a war just because the battle isn’t going well.  In researching for this essay I came across something even more terrifying than Rick Santorum.  The war on secularism and free thought is one that has always been waged, and may still be for the foreseeable future.  It is a war fought in increments, and one of the more popular incremental battles is that fought against women’s rights.  No other form of “morality” is more fiercely legislated-or attempted to be legislated- and has more potential for dangerous consequences than that of abortion.  Roe v Wade was won almost thirty years ago, and for thirty years the religious and conservative right has battled to overturn it.  All of the 2012 potential Republican candidates swore to make abortion illegal in the event they were to win the Office.  35 states have laws that have led to hundreds of women’s prosecution for the crime of stillbirth and miscarriages.  A woman in Alabama was recently convicted after her infant died 19 minutes after birth.  In utero it was determined that the fetus had Down’s syndrome and she was advised to terminate; which she did not because she was against abortion.  Yet she faces ten years for being the mother of a dead child.[2] 

            This is what happens when a government has the ability to legislate morality.  When politicians ignore the rights and beliefs-or lack thereof- of the citizens of this country, and are not driven back by the sense of the mass of common man, we are merely a step away from a dystopia worthy of George Orwell.  It is our duty in every election year to ensure we safeguard our freedom of free-thought, and fight in the spirit of our Founding Fathers.  Republicans are fond of saying (ad naseum) that there can be no morality if there is no God.  That without an amorphous higher being in the sky telling people the difference between right and wrong, there will be chaos and anarchy; the ethical center will no longer hold.  I contend that the most powerful of principles arise from those who have no one to answer to but themselves.  After all, no one has ever been able to see the Almighty when they look in a mirror.  Unless, of course, you happen to be Rick Santorum. 

---

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/more-see-too-much-religious-talk-by-politicians.aspx

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

The Result of Too Many Comment Boards

I was reading an article about a woman in NJ who had a 51 pound tumor in her belly but waited until she was 65 to have it treated because she didn't have healthcare and couldn't afford the surgery or the cancer treatment she would need afterwards.  And then I once more made the mistake of reading the comment threads, because I am a freaking masochist.  But since I was already really pissed off anyway because of other assholes and their self-delusional irony clouds, I just kept on.  After a while I had to respond, and I was rather proud of it, so I am putting it on this here blog.  I know how much everyone loves my political ranting.  In any case, this was in response to someone's post on how Obama and the Affordable Care Act completely ignore preventative and wellness care and how it's going to make insurance premiums shoot through the roof- both of which are complete bullshit.  I will state for the record that I do think the woman could have gone to the ER and the surgery would have been done if it was life-threatening; I've had to take the boys to the hospital on a few occasions and have never been turned away, nor have I myself been.  Now, for my brilliant commentary.  Seriously, I think I need a 12 step program to stop reading those boards.

"That's actually, again, patently false. The ACA absolutely does address preventative care and wellness visits by requiring them to be 100% covered, with no copay. The whole idea of this is to allow everyone-or at least everyone who wants it- the ability to care for themselves and their children if and when they need it, or even when they don't, so that minor issues do not become major ones. And also, any time either of the Obama's has talked about things like getting America to exercise, or mandating healthy lunches in our children's schools, conservative wing-nuts started having apoplectic fits, saying the First Lady could pry the cheeseburgers from their diabetic, cold dead hands and waving around the Constitution like any of them had any idea what was written in it. I swear to God, if I were the President I would be banging my head against a wall every night after having to hear this ignorant, ill-informed, moronic drivel from the very people he has been trying to help day in and day out. Who the hell would want that job? I'm getting so fed up with the American sensibilities I can barely stand it; I can only imagine how frustrated the President and First Lady must be. Because they, unlike you, actually do know what's entailed in the Affordable Care Act. He's probably taken the time to peruse it once or twice before spouting off rhetoric. The President also most likely doesn't get 100% of his information from Sean Hannity.

It shouldn't matter if it raises costs, even though it doesn't. It shouldn't matter if every tax payer has to pay an extra 30 bucks a month in taxes, even though that's not true. What should matter, even though it doesn't seem to, is that everyone who is alive today has the basic right of feeling safe in the fact that if they get sick, someone is there to take care of them. Or if their children get sick, or get hit by a car, or their husband or wife has a stroke, or any manner of things that can happen to anyone, whether they be rich or poor. I'm so tired of reading comments about free rides, and how they "don't want to pay for some poor person's healthcare". What is wrong with you people? If you saw someone dying in the street, would you go help, or just step over them? Would your answer change if they weren't wearing Armani? And it isn't even as extreme as all that. Like someone else said, we are 34th in the world in health coverage. We are 49th in infant mortality. Are you people paying attention? South Korea, Cuba, , the Czech Republic, all of these countries are safer places to have babies than what is supposed to be the leader of the free damn world. The country with the greatest life expectancy? Yeah, not us. It's Macau, a place I didn't even know existed before I looked it up for this comment. We should, every one of us, be ashamed that we live in a country that cares so little for the people who live in it. Actually, not every one of us, because there are still people in this country who are fighting to make it better, fighting to make it safer and healthier, and the only thing stopping them are arrogant, greedy, selfish jerks who would rather see the poor dead than spend an extra few bucks so that maybe everyone gets a chance for that whole pursuit of happiness crap everyone keeps talking about.

You know what's the most ironic? The people who say that we shouldn't help those in need are almost always part of the religious right. I seem to remember something about Christian charity, and that Jesus guy, he seemed like a pretty good example of a socialist. Not that any of you people actually know what that word means."

I think that's a blog entry all by itself.

For the Edification of Those Who Hate

        Recently I had the misfortune of getting caught up in a thread on Facebook having to deal with gay marriage and politics.  It was in response to a shared picture that showed two men lying on top of the North Carolina Republican Party headquarters, sharing a kiss in protest of the state's recent ban on civil unions.  I have read my share of evil comments made by ignorant jackholes- probably more than my share, because for some reason it is difficult to stop scrolling down as the vitriol keeps coming.  I understand that everyone has their own opinion about homosexuality.  I understand that everyone has a stance on the legal side of the argument.  I also am well aware that much- if not all- of the hateful words have spewed forth from the mouths (and fingers) of the so-called religious.  I will share two comments from this thread- one mine, and one his- both directly copied and pasted:

       Me: I think this was specifically geared toward the state, not just the Republican Party at large. And of course members from both parties oppose, but the vast majority is conservative Republicans. Yeah I just looked it up. A few days ago North Carolina banned not just gay marriage, but also civil unions. Hence the protest. Almost all Democrats are for civil unions, even if they are opposed to same sex marriage. And Chuckie, it's not really about the benefits of marriage, or the name. It's about how straight people can marry whenever they feel like it-take Britney Spears, for example- and they can't. It's about equality. Straight people take the idea of marriage for granted (at least some do) and a great deal make a mockery of the institution, whereas the conservatives say allowing same sex marriage will ruin the institution of marriage. Which is complete crap. If anyone ruins marriage, it's us. Statistically speaking, same sex couples are much more likely to remain together than their opposite sex counterparts, due in large part, I believe, because they have had to fight for the simple human right to express their love in that manner. Ok, off my soapbox now.

        Him: another misconception... And missing the mark.

This is why we never get things done and why we never get along with those that disagree because people now a days disagree without ever learning the TRUE facts and they just follow propaganda.

True married straight couples and more importantly TRUE practicing religious think most marriages between 2 straight people is wrong too. Churches do NOT and will NOT ever recognize a justice of the peace, a captain of a ship or an online minister as a legal marriage. Celebrity Weddings, Vegas Weddings, backyard weddings done by aunt Gemma, THESE ARE ALL wrong.

The problem with Gay marriage is that same sex couples, although may be in love, are NOT acting within the laws of nature. A gay couple says "I can't help who I love... who are YOU to tell me I can't love someone." Do me a favor look up the NAMBLA organization and learn about their "love". It's a pervertion... To me civil unions allow the legally binding contract without involving the churches. The moment "marriage" is put in the vocabulary it's only a matter of time before the Government and the ACLU force religions to recognize, perform and accept gay weddings in their congregation under the punishment of lawsuits and revoking tax exemption...

May 21 at 11:40pm

     I was never able to get him to explain what "true religion" was, but I had to stare at my screen for a solid minute while I processed his comparison between same sex couples and the pedophiles of NAMBLA (which stands for, if someone doesn't know, North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group so disgusting and vile I want to believe in hell simply so they can burn there).    I have never been able to comprehend the sheer magnitude of hate and ignorance that can come from the overzealous.  What is even more incomprehensible is how, like in this instance, they keep nattering about how they alone know the TRUTH and everyone else is just too far below them to understand.  And yes, I see the irony.  I am very often guilty of the same condescension; but here is the difference.  When they do it, they speak of things ephemeral, they speak of things of faith, of things invisible…they speak of a God that according to their own religion they have no right to speak for.  When I condescend, I am at least polite enough to fact check before I do so, and if I am still wrong, I readily admit it.  In fact, I had to do that very thing a few days ago, on a Republican friend’s wall post, and anyone who knows me knows how little I enjoy being wrong in that arena.  None of my arguments, none of my opinions come from a place of faith, because even though I have my own, it is simply that- my own.  Further, and much more important, if I am wrong in all things religious, if there is an omniscient and omnipresent deity living in the sky taking notes on everything every single one of us do, and judging us accordingly; if I die, and there actually are some pearly gates, and a large book of my deeds being pored over by a man in a robe, and that man tells me I am wrong, that everything I have ever said or believed is wrong- well, then, shit, I was wrong.  But here is the important part; the only person who has the right to judge my beliefs, my actions, my thoughts, or my soul IS that man in the robe (provided he exists).  My faith has no such judgmental tribunal, no everlasting torment, no eternal sing-alongs of kumbaya.  However, because I believe in mine, it stands to reason everyone else’s could be real too, so I hedge my bets and generally try to not be an asshole.  Unfortunately, so few “truly” religious people follow my lead.  I hear them say that God will judge the sinners, and that they should all be prepared to buy a whole lot of burn cream and breathable cottons, but never, not once, do I hear these same people admit that they are right in line behind me.   The Bible is literally chock full of tidbits about not judging others: 

Matthew 7: 1-5: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” 

Romans 2:1-3:  “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?”

Matthew 12:36-37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    

And about a thousand more.  What has always struck me as horrifyingly amusing is that these very religious people seemed to have skipped these parts.  This offends me; not as a Christian, obviously, because I’m not one, but because I am not one and I still believe in the spirit of these words and they do not.  What gives any among us the right to hate anyone?  Or the right to share that hate until it festers, and grows, and becomes the Republican National Party? (I kid.) 

    Taking out the religion leaves us with just the mere ignorance of these people.  Because of course there is the same type of people in every religion, every race, both sexes.  The person from the above quote talks about FACTS and TRUTH and how nowadays everyone just spits back propaganda.  And I am willing to bet that person typed that without the slightest hint of the irony.  I have to say that TRUTH is hard to come by; our media is controlled and conducted in such a way now that there seems to be no separation between collective opinion and what these networks call the news.  We are all victims of propaganda until we choose to not be anymore.  We have to decide to seek out what is true, even though that truth may not be what we like.  In this case, there is all kinds of true scientific data to back up any argument having to do with same sex couples and marriage; unfortunately, however, even in science you can run across professional hypocrites who will conduct experiments that are designed to yield only the result they want then publish that information as fact, upon which the ignorant masses cling on to it as if it is a life preserver for their hate.  “See?” they say.  “This study supports absolutely everything we say, so the other twenty thousand studies done that disproves it HAS to be wrong.”  People see what they want to see.  That will never change. 

            Getting back to this marriage thing.  The above person claims that it is fine if same sex couples have civil unions so they can get all the legal benefits of marriage, along with the equal right to the unending hell of splitting up assets if the union goes south, but says that by using the word marriage, it automatically means that the union is a religious one; meaning that no one is truly married unless the spokesperson of God has joined them as such.  If that is the case, there are a hell of a lot of bastards running around.  Marriage is not a religious concept, nor can it be used by the government to thwart the church’s god-given right to tax exemption  History paints the accurate picture of what marriage really is.  Historically speaking (meaning based in fact) “marriage” was more often than not simply an agreement made to legitimize offspring, and to cement succession.  In ancient Greece, it was literally just an agreement between two people.  In some African tribes, marriage happens when two people agree and one moves into the other’s tent.  It wasn’t until the early Christian era that the church wanted anything to do with marriages at all.  However, the union of two (or more) people is a concept so old that it predates written history.  The same cannot be said for the Judeo-Christian religions.  So, then, were all those unions wrong, or not approved by God?  Were they all illegitimate?  And further, how can that be, if God is omniscient and has his Hand in everything that has ever been done on Earth?  Did a couple hundred thousand years slip his notice?  The fact is that all marriage is a civil union; it is a legal term, and nothing more.  To be a fine point on it, two people can go through a wedding ceremony in a church, but until they file that paperwork with the state, they are not married.  Even if your god has sanctioned it, as far as the government is concerned, you still can’t jointly file your taxes. 

            So, again, I am confused.  Since factually, I have just outlined how marriage is indeed a legal one that merely has religious significance to religious people, how can someone be FOR civil unions, which give the same legal benefits, but be AGAINST marriage, which is the same exact freaking thing?  There are a lot of non-religious people who get married every day; this person thinks they are all living in sin and their children are all bastards.  They say that same sex marriage will ruin the moral fiber of America (as if we still had some to ruin) and will lead to the breakdown of society, and eventually will lead to people wanting to marry their dogs.  They say this because they have the mental acuity of a turnip.  They would have to in order to make that cosmic leap.  It all comes down to, again, the biggest problem I have with people, but America especially.  They think that their beliefs need to be forcefully undertaken by everyone else, regardless of whether or not everyone else shares those beliefs.  They think they are RIGHT, and by god, it’s their duty to make sure everyone steps in line.  Why can’t we just live in a world in which everyone has their own opinion but actually allows everyone else to have a different one?  I’m disagreed with all the time; I don’t care.  I argue when I have facts to back me up, but if it is simply opinion, then by all means, have your own.  I may think you’re a moron who should avoid breeding at all costs, but I will defend your right to disagree with me to the death.  The legalization of same sex marriage doesn’t affect anyone who isn’t actively in the position to want one, so why the fight?  If God is as all powerful as you think, I am pretty sure he’s got it covered.  I am equally sure that there is no god that wants or needs their people to hate and kill on their behalf. 

            And yet we still have people who believe that hatred and judgment is the path to righteousness. 

            I will end with one of my favorite quotes that was paraphrased from that same book all those religious people like to ignore:

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

The Takeover of South Jersey

     In the last week, Southern New Jersey has been thrown into what amounts to a dictatorship, led by our Fuhrer, Governor Chris Christie, via a back-door deal with Stalin, aka George Norcross, to overhaul the higher education system in NJ.  This is the same man who less that two years ago claimed the state spent far too much on education, and that teachers were overpaid and overrated.  I start with a quote: "You all know the state cannot continue to spend money it does not have. And you all know that the appetite for tax increases among our constituents has come to an end...There's no time left. We have no room left to borrow. We have no room left to tax." This is from an article in which Chris Christie slams the need for spending more on education in this state.  So, then, we have to wonder, why is this proposal even being considered?  I will break this down for those who don't know what is happening.  
     Plans to reorganize the higher education system in NJ have been bandied about for over ten years now, but every other such plan only included changes to the medical school UMDNJ and the possibility of Rowan University gaining control of Cooper Hospital so that there would be an excellent, research orientated medical school in Southern New Jersey.  The last such plan was dismissed by Governor McGreevy, presumably because of the prohibitive cost.  On January 25, 2012, Chris Christie announced that a board consisting of 5 people, none of which are economists or even physicians, at UMDNJ had released a proposal outlining how they recommend the state overhaul the higher education system of Southern NJ.  Actually, all of NJ.  5 people.  None of them qualified to make such an assessment, but we will ignore that for now.  
     Cooper Medical is, for all intents and purposes, owned by George Norcross.  A deal was made last year for Rowan University to buy and incorporate Cooper into their Camden campus, although keeping Glassboro as their flagship campus.  This is a 28 million dollar project on it's own.  Now the "plan" stands as this:

    This plan began with a medical school.  In fact, this entire quagmire is about a medical school.  As you can see, UMDNJ would be sliced up, some absorbed by Rutgers-New Brunswick, and some allowed their autonomy while still continuing to be state owned, but privately run (read:someone is making a bunch of bank).  Now look below to South Jersey.  Rowan University, while boasting a nationally ranked Engineering School, is a small teaching college barely 15 years into University status.  While known in the region, it has as yet not gained prestige or distinction outside the immediate area.  So why, then, does Christie insist on the hostile takeover of Rutgers-Camden?  Enter the medical school.  Cooper Medical will now be run by Rowan, and without Rutgers, it will be the only research hospital in NJ not affiliated with a research university.  And that simply cannot be allowed.  However, Rowan will, if this plan goes through, also take Rutgers Law, Rutgers Business, and the Camden campus itself, and the entire facility will be under the flag of the Rowan name.  Rutgers Law-Camden has seen the likes of governors, federal judges, Congresspeople, and many other notable alumni graduate for the past 61 years.  The same for Rutgers Business.  Rutgers University as a whole, and the Camden campus itself is a globally recognized research based State institution.  Rowan began as a small teaching college until one man bought himself a college for 100 million and five years later it gained University status.  So, who has the most to lose, and the most to gain?

     That answer is obvious.  However, while no one involved will explain the reasoning, Rowan would be the one to gain everything.  Again, the only explanation truly given is that it is because Rowan will have Cooper Medical.   The UMDNJ report states that the only reason Rowan is to become the flagship of South Jersey education is "because of it's ties to Cooper Medical."  The report goes on to say that combining the schools is necessary "for Rowan to become a comprehensive research facility".

    And I am sure that is true.  Rowan does require Rutgers assets, resources, faculty, students, and prestige to become a "comprehensive research facility" because Rutgers-Camden already IS a comprehensive research facility.  It only lacks a medical school.  Nowhere in this report does it state why it is necessary for Rutgers to lose everything, and Rowan to possess it all.  Nowhere does it explain why Rowan must also take the law and business schools to become this comprehensive research facility.  Something else not mentioned is why a consortium model, used by such states as Boston (which has in its consortium Harvard University, Boston College, Boston University, UMass Amherst, and several others), to accomplish the same goal of unifying higher education in Southern New Jersey and affiliating the facility with an already established research university, but still allowing the much more prestigious name of Rutgers continue in a city that desperately needs it.  

    Also strangely missing from the UMDNJ

    Then we examine the claim of stimulating the economy.  Well, we've already addressed how much more debt the state will be in, so I don't see much stimulation.  Perhaps in about ten years that will be the case.  But not now.  A friend has told me I am not looking at "the big picture" and how "sometimes a lot of money must be spent now to create money in the future".  This is hilarious to me, considering the Republicans view on that notion.  The nation's president has been doing that very same thing, and he is being lambasted for it.  Go figure.  What remains to be the truth is that Camden, NJ is a depressed city, and Rutgers University's presence there has been one of the few shining lights in the area.  Not only are there several community projects within Rutgers to make Camden a better place, graduates often return to give back to their alma mater's community, feeling a sense of responsibility to the city.  Make no mistake, Christie, Norcross, and Rowan couldn't care less about Camden and what it needs.  Removing a prestigious university from Camden and replacing it with a plan that will require an astounding (read: over a billion dollars) amount of money will only depress it further, and limit the options for it's residents.  

    Which brings me to the more options part of Christie's claims.  No matter how you do the math, removing one option from the two options in the area equals one LESS opportunity, not more.  In addition, the faculty from Rutgers-Camden, largely tenured and all powerful forces in their respective fields (all fields, not just the engineering field Rowan focuses on) have shown their outrage at the threat to their careers and some may choose to move on to greener pastures-perhaps to a University whose name means something beyond the borders of the tri-state area.  Students have said they may not return either.  Administration officials in RU-C have said they are already experiencing difficulties in hiring new faculty, because these new applicants do not want to enter into an unknown facility-this would lessen their positions in their fields and rob them of their affiliation with a globally known university.  With only one option that has not had the time to develop into the same caliber as Rutgers, more students than ever will flee the state and go across the bridge for their education, taking away money and opportunity from our state, not bringing it in.  

     The residents of Camden who seek an excellent education at Rutgers, counting on the name to help them open doors for them, allowing them the opportunity to rise from a depressed city and create a name for themselves, may not have that opportunity at all if this proposal continues.  The Rowan-Camden campus houses 500 students, as opposed to the roughly 6500 of Rutgers-Camden.  How would any of the Camden students get into the Camden campus of this merged facility?  And when they can't, will they be able to go elsewhere?  Glassboro is twenty miles away from Camden, a distance that may be too prohibitive for some to overcome.  What happens to their futures?  There has been a rumor of a future light rail line made to go between Camden and Glassboro, but again, where is all this money coming from?

    Rutgers-Camden students, alumni and faculty have not been taking this lying down.  The movement against this shady and fuzzy proposal was swift and immediate, with a petition accumulating more than 7500 signatures in a little over a week, endorsements of support from highly placed alumni, and wide-spread media coverage.  Rowan's interim president and a couple of members of the supposedly independent Board of Governors and Trustees (the boards who need to vote to pass this bill-but also who consist of no less than five individuals involved in the creation of the bill itself, in flagrant disregard for the conflict of interest) have at turns dismissed the movement, and the State Senate President (who, again, is supposedly objective) has called the protest a "lynch mob".  The former have claimed that Rutgers students will "calm down once they realize they will still have a degree from the State University".  Strangely, the students at Rutgers DO understand that, and yet the movement is only gaining steam.  Senator Sweeney of West Deptford somehow saw the peaceful protest of around 700 students (almost double that in total for the forum meeting following) as an "irresponsible lynch mob" in the same breath as claiming he wouldn't support the proposal if he didn't like it.  Having been at that rally, and also having the evidence of several media news outlets to back me up, there was nothing "lynch mob" like about the protest.  And it is patently irresponsible to to dismiss the First Amendment rights of the students, when, regardless of the details Sweeney says have not even been ironed out yet, we at Rutgers-Camden have everything to lose and nothing to gain.  I may get my Rutgers degree, but I was going to attend Rutgers Law, and why would I do that now?  The American Bar Association says that the newly formed facility would be required to be re-accredited.  On top of that, why would I go to a law school no one has heard of unless I have no intention of actually getting a job in the field?  Rutgers Law would have allowed me to go out of state with a brand-name law degree in my hand, giving me a leg up in an economy and job market that is dismal at best.  Now my only real option is to leave the state to get my law degree, joining the other masses of potential lawyers and businesspeople who would rather have their piece of paper they spent tens of thousands of dollars earning actual be worth the paper it's printed on outside of a two hundred mile radius.  

    At this moment, the "lynch mob" of Rutgers students, faculty, and alumni are massing outside Trenton, NJ at the Senate meeting to show the state, the governor and George Norcross that we will do whatever it takes to prevent the hostile takeover of our school and our reputation.  We will not take this lying down.  We are fighters.  We are Rutgers.

The Callousness of America

This week I have had the misfortune of dealing with a very large company and was faced with a disgusting display of corporate greed.  But that is not what this particular blog is about.  This one isn't even about politics, really, although that very much comes into play.  This blog is about what I encountered when sharing my story on the company's user boards.
    Now, my problem is a legitimate one.  Individually.  Not a large one in the scheme of things, but pretty big to me, because it involves money, and more importantly, money I desperately needed and was depending on.  Having been screwed over, I did what I always do- I researched the living hell out of the problem and found that thousands more had been affected in similar and much worse ways than me.  This is an issue that involves ethics-or the lack thereof- and maybe even a practice that is illegal.  So I go onto the user boards not only to read about others having the same issue, but to warn people who were thinking of entering into an agreement with this company, and trying to warn them.  Every one of my posts was factual, well thought out, and articulate, because, well that's kinda how I roll; but also because I know that if you post a huge rant filled with unnecessary punctuation and misspelled words and incoherent sentences, you will not be taken seriously.  
    So I was my usual charming self on these posts.  While reading I came across other users who apparently have only one joy in life, which is to go on to user boards and bully people who say just about anything they don't agree with.  Mind you, I said nothing when I read these people's posts, because I was taught not to attack people I don't know.  Also, I was raised to be respectful, even when those people are pedantic pricks.  In any case, I was not surprised when the gaggle of haters descended on me like so many blood-thirsty vultures.  Their comments were essentially the same, all with the same condescending and hostile tone.  Basically, I was back in 7th grade again.  But these are not 12 year old children.  They are, presumably, adults, seeing as how they are active members of a company that would require them to be such.  My response to them, I hope, was as enlightening as a similar response would be to my children if I ever caught them acting the ways these people did.  I am sure my hope is irrational, because assholes are just assholes, and even putting up a mirror to their behavior won't change them at all.
    My experience on these boards brought to mind my largest pet peeve, the biggest gripe I have about the American people.  Callousness.  Disrespect.  The lack of consideration of others.  The lack of politeness.  Where did these qualities go?  Yes, we all have our moments when we are pushed too far and we go off on other people.  I certainly have. (But to be fair, she REALLY deserved it) However, all in all, I strive to do my best to be considerate and respectful to others.  Had I not been provoked, I would never have dreamed of randomly attacking some idiot on a user board, regardless of how much they deserved it.  Like I said, I saw these particular posters behave this way on dozens of boards and said nothing.  How did these people give themselves permission to act that way towards another person that they 1) never met, and 2) can't even see?  And you do have to give yourself permission to be an asshole.  There is something in your cognitive process that decides "Yep, it is totally ok for me to be a raging prick right now.  And after that, I think I will kick some puppies."  
    Don't get me wrong, I know that on occasion I can be a bitch.  But I need to be seriously pushed into it, and feel very strongly about something, to get me there.  This often involves me being the mother grizzly bear I am when people I love are being attacked.  Yet these people seem to do it for the sheer joy of putting other people down.  I know personally several people who do this, and I choose not to interact with them unless forced to on FB threads.  And always, ALWAYS, these people think they know more, and are smarter than they actually are.  Psychologically speaking, I know it comes from a place of feeling inferior themselves, and by bringing others down, they feel superior.  I get that.  Maybe only truly superior people can keep their mouths shut about how awesome they are and how smart they are.  I don't know.
    I single out Americans because I think we are the biggest culprits here.  It has, I think, something to do with the sense of entitlement a majority of Americans feel, like they truly are better than everyone else.  And worse, that they are more important than everyone else.  That is why we have more than enough resources for everyone in the country and then some, but we still have children starving in the streets.  Because of the entitled masses saying, "I don't care about anyone else but me, because don't you understand I am more important that you?" It has gotten to such an extreme that I don't think people like that even understand that they are not, in fact, the only person in the universe.  I truly believe that these people believe other humans are only a prop in their little life play, that it doesn't matter how you treat them, because they don't actually exist.  You know who else thinks that way?  Serial killers.
    The Internet only makes it worse.  We already had assholes who were comfortable being assholes to everyone's
    Except we know that it matters.  Especially with kids and even some adults.  Phoebe Prince, the 13 year old Irish girl who killed herself a couple of years ago, did it after reading a bunch of Facebook comments that I am betting the posters didn't even think twice about.  Maybe those kids would have told Phoebe she should kill herself right to her face, but I doubt it.  Doing it on her facebook page made it easy, because they didn't have to see face when she read the words.  Except they never saw her face again, because she hung herself.  And despite everything the law is attempting to do in her case, not much is ever going to happen to those kids, because they don't want to "ruin their lives".  It doesn't matter that the fact that they were never taught to care about other human beings helped kill that little girl.  They were just typing on a computer, right?  
   And of course we know Phoebe isn't the only one to do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.  Americans, in general, have stopped teaching their children the basic tenets of decency and morality.  They are being given their moral compasses from The Situation and Snookie.  I wasn't raised that way, but of course I was absolutely tortured in grade and middle school.  I can only imagine the vitriol my classmates would have come up with had Facebook been around then.  I wonder if I would have been able to live through it if it had.  I barely survived the experience, and I was very strong.  I am lucky that my experiences turned me into Teflon, but what about others who aren't as strong-willed?  Well, we know what happens to them, we see it on the news every day.  
    I see what this country is becoming and it disgusts me.  We used to be a nation of people who actually gave a damn, by and large.  In which neighbors would help neighbors and people actually cared about people other than themselves.  It will only get worse if we don't teach our future generations respect and basic common decency.  We need to teach them what we were always taught; if you don't have something nice to say, shut the hell up.  We need to teach them to be caring, giving, worthwhile human beings that would rather help a starving man than step over his body to get another buck.  That is how I raise my children, because I want to be proud of the future we are giving them.  I want to be.  I just don't know how likely it is anymore.

The War on Fear

I don't expect anything I'm about to write to be popular, but as per usual, I honestly don't care.  I understand what seems to clear to me based on actual fact seems entirely different to someone else, who, of course, is equally positive they are right, whether they have fact behind them or not.  
    Now, I have been vocal to some about my reservations on how our President has gone about the business of running our country.  I firmly believe that if the day the South Carolina Congressman who called him a liar in open Congress had been bitch-slapped into the next century by our leader, then we would be living in a much different climate.  Metaphorically speaking, of course.  Literally speaking, we'd still be screwed when it comes to the actual climate.  But that's another blog.  When Obama chose to remain silent and turn the other cheek to such a shocking display of disrespect, it told the Republicans (and the future Tea Party) all they needed to know.  They could control this upstart black man.  And they did.  
    Maybe I am just a sucker for the dark horse, but I read these editorials or read what former friends write and I get so angry at the self-imposed cloud of ignorance.  I hear words like "socialist", "Marxist", "Hitler", "dictator" and it makes me want to punch something.  I get that all presidents face something very close to this, but this is the only time in history in which a Speaker of the House was permitted to slam a sitting President on national TV after a State of the Union speech.  The only time in history a President has been mocked and insulted in open Congress.  And by far the only President who has been so thoroughly bootstrapped by the opposing side.  People lay the blame at the man's feet but it does not belong there.  It belongs at the feet of the Congress and the Republicans who would, and actually have killed bills that were theirs to start with.  Yes.  Obama has proposed bills almost verbatim to that of Republicans, and they have been shot down, with an insult thrown in for good measure.  This is how America "gets things done" now.  
   What prompted me to write at this moment is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  Constitutionalists are lathering themselves up into a libertarian froth over it, and while I could understand why if they were even remotely accurate about their complaints, for the most part, they are not.  The NDAA is a bill that is passed every year and has been for 49 years.  This year, the controversy is the part that, people believe anyway, gives the President the power to detain anyone he damn well feels like it on even "the flimsiest hint of terrorism" (this was from a Tea Party radio personality Dr. Laura Roth, who is a dingbat).  The controversy, to them, is that this includes US citizens.  This addition to the NDAA is an obvious response to the US traitor that everyone was so upset about earlier in the year who was "assassinated" (because if you're foreign, it's execution, but if you were born in the US, even if you have disavowed all citizenship, it is an assassination).  However, because I like to know the truth and not just be fed things that are designed to make me scared and pliable, I actually looked it up.  The actual, 568 page bill.  
   First off, I want to make clear that while I very much think the Constitution needs to be overhauled and redesigned for the current time period, I am very protective of the right to due process and everything that comes with it.  Although, that, too is horribly abused by our citizenry, it is supposed to be our protection against overzealous government agencies.  I stress supposed to be.  People- even people I deeply respect- see this bill as the end of our civil liberties and the end of civilization as we know it.  It's not.  Here are the facts.
     In 2002, President Bush signed the AUMF, or the Authorization of Military Force, against Iraq (the country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, just to be clear). This, along with the Patriot Act, is the background for the new provisions in the NDAA. The problem the people I mention have is the provision in which they think the act allows the President carte blanch when detaining terrorist suspects.  Again, this is not the case.  First of all, the government has had this power since the Patriot Act was signed.  The provision includes US citizens, and that's where things supposedly get hairy.  However, this is the exact wording of that provision:


    "The NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, includes any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF] ..

It goes on to make this point clear:

     "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"

This is not carte blancheal-Qaeda or Taliban.  This is clearly stated.  Further, if you are an American citizen who is plotting against America, you are guilty of treason, in which case you have said goodbye to your civil liberties anyway.  Also, the penalty is death, usually.  It always has been.  

    What I am personally upset with is that, yet again, the blame gets placed at Obama's feet and he is called a dictator.  Here is another fact: Obama did not want this provision included under any circumstances.  When it was proposed, he said he would veto it if it reached his desk.  The response?  Congress said they would not vote on the bill extending unemployment and several other desperately needed programs.  They, once again, held American interests hostage to get their way.  Our Congress, by definition, are terrorists.  They just do not hold guns, they hold pens.  So Obama has no choice to agree.  But when he signs, he states very clearly he does not agree with this provision. This is what he said at the signing:

   "Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."

   I could expound on this even more, but this is my main point.  We, the American people, are to blame.  When we vote for a President, it really doesn't matter.  Most people don't understand how the Electoral College works, and I honestly wish I didn't, because it depresses me.  If you need any further evidence that American is NOT a democracy and never has been, read up on the Electoral College.  Suffice it to say, voting for a President makes you feel like you are taking charge of your government, but really it's not up to you.  Or me.  However, that is not the case when it comes to the Senate and the Congress.  We, as a people, really do vote them in.  In 2010, the Tea Party invaded the Congress like a Mongolian horde, only with more pillaging.  And we allowed that to happen.  In 2008, same thing.  What no one seems to understand is that the President's power is extremely limited.  He can only do what the Congress allows him to do, which is painfully obvious looking back over the past three years.  American voters give the Congress that power.  And they use it to attack and destroy the fabric of our society, all in the name of good old-fashioned money.  

   People are afraid.  They are terrified.  They want someone to blame and because they are sheep, they blame the one person who actually doesn't shoulder most of it.  Polls show that Congress has a 16% approval rating, as opposed to Obama's 42%.  That is supposed to show that there is some sanity out there somewhere, but all I read or hear about is how Obama has failed in all his promises and has destroyed America (when he inherited a destroyed America) and how they just can't wait for that socialist dictator to go away so we can get down to "fixing America".  It is fear that drives the ignorance.  No one wants America to turn into a police state, or lose our civil rights, or basically turn into other countries that have done that (and often have better run governments for it, but that's beside the point).  We are in no danger of that actually happening, but that is the message these groups are spreading because fear makes people nice and pliable, and makes them vote any way they are told.  Which brings me to what I am afraid of.

   I am deathly afraid of what the next few years will bring.  Fear makes people turn to religion, which in and of itself isn't necessarily negative, but it often leads to overzealous, dangerous religious people taking power, historically speaking.  Looking at the GOP potentials, almost all of them do little else but spout about God, and religion, and the moral fiber of America and what they will do to "restore America to morality".  I, personally, do not want anyone deciding what is moral and what is not.  Because unfortunately, a great deal of our laws reflect a stance on morality.  What is right and what is wrong.  But these people, some of whom are truly terrifying, think anyone who does not think the way they do is wrong.  They want to not only blur the line of separation of church and state, they want to eradicate it.  The very thing that led to the founding of our country they want to destroy, and nobody even blinks.  Nobody calls foul and waves the Constitution around like a banner at this idea.  

   I'm afraid because I can see a future in which the corrupt Congress and a zealot President join together and I can see what will happen.  I may not agree with a whole lot of Obama's tactics, but he is the only thing standing in the way right now of that happening.  The Conservatives and the Republicans have an agenda.  Right now, even with his limitations, Obama can still prevent that agenda from being realized.  But if we- and by we I mean the Electoral College- elect a President with the same agenda, this country will no longer even slightly resemble the country our Founding Fathers fought for.  There will be freedom of religion, in practice even if not by mandate.  Social programs in their current form- programs over 60% of us desperately need- will not exist.  Immigrants will be deported by the millions and there will be no one to take the jobs they leave behind, because despite what everyone loves to think, illegal immigrants work jobs that none of us would take.  Because of this the economy would suffer even more (this has already occurred in Georgia) Abortion would become illegal.  Homosexuality would be banned-again in spirit and practice if not by mandate.  Health care for the poor would be non-existent.  Would the more extreme things happen?  For example, would we start lynching people if they were pagans, like me?  I don't know.  Far worse things have happened here, and not that long ago.  

   I'm tired, and I've rambled, but I don't care.  All I ask if for people to take charge of their own information, and not someone else's version of the truth.  Don't be spoonfed someone else's ideas.  Don't be afraid because someone else tells you you should be.  And, for the love of everything good and holy, stop blaming the wrong people for what is the fault of others.