A Treatise on Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and the Rights of Youth in America

An Voice that has yet to be suppressed is still a free voice.

"Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains. "
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Swiss political philosopher and essayist

I sit here a free human being. I am a free woman, a free Caucasian, a free adult, a free European, a free college student, a free liberal, a free atheist, and a free and uninhibited generally healthy person. There are no laws to prohibit me from doing what I like so long as I do not harm others.

You see, laws were made with the purpose of protecting people from other people and occasionally, themselves. This a good thing we all assume. By no means do I disagree with the notion that humans need protection from other humans as humans are always out to get one another for a few reasons (but not limited to) that I shall list below:

1. Money
2. Power
3. Sexual Control
4. Inheritance/Property Control
5. Revenge
6. The aggressor has become mentally unstable and choose to randomly attack or threaten people with no actual reason or forcing to do whatever it may be by outside forces.
7. Boredom
8. Being forced to do something by others.
9. Being tricked to do something by others.
10. Believing what they're doing is right, or just or good.
11. Being forced to do something due to the economy or financial situation.
12. Being to physically ill (but not mentally) to know right from wrong.
13. Being too mentally incapable but not crazy to understand right from wrong. (Brain damage, etc).
14. Just because they felt like it.

And so on and so forth.

People do terrible things to one another, always have and always will. That I do not think can be effectively argued against and it is an absolute. Humans want things and they need things too. It is human nature to want, to desire and that is part of survival, that is part of the human experience, of being human.

The Chains of Humanity

Humans are inherently born free but they are also inherently born with chains attached to them. Invisible chains that are almost impossible to sever. The human is born at first with a chain to his/her parents then if the parents fail the child as determined by the State at which the parents reside the child is then chained to the State. The child is under the guidance and authority of the State for ALL of his or her needs. There is no defense or escape from their authority until the child reaches late adolescence. Then, if granted, a few links of the chains are weakened but not actually cut or perhaps one could say the chain in merely lengthened but the child, the human, is still not released from the control of the State. The State makes a terrible parent says many, even those on the inside can admit to this travesty of a situation, this rape of justice, this execution of freedom.

This country we reside in, the United States of America is not what it promises nor has it ever been. Every "freedom" we have has not been granted freely nor has it been granted to everyone. Some of us are trapped more than others in the prison that is humanity. The so-called "children" are the current and thus far eternal prisoners of this country. There is little hope for people to listen to them, much less care, if they are lucky enough.

This is disgusting and wrong and must change. There is no reason to be so cruel to humans and to discriminate against them merely based on AGE!

Yet another post about alcohol-- and age discrimination

So I was reading a little website just now about the drinking age as it stands now, at 21, presented on this website are "issues" and "responses" which seem to have been researched.

Now, I do not attempt to argue against or for these responses only to put my opinion about them forward, also, not using as much research as they do~

Here goes...

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?

Yes

I answer "yes" because at 18 I am an adult, plain and simple. I have the rights and responsibilities of an adult finally granted to me. In that, the most shocking rights I am given are

1. Having sex (and making money off of it via porn)
   
2. Smoking cigarettes
3. Killing
4. Being executed for killing
5. Getting into debt
6. Also, I am finally once and for all considered an "adult" and I and only I (not my parents) am allowed to consent or refuse treatment for medical problems and so on much to the joy or dismay of my previously legally controlling parents.
   

I wouldn't call being executed a good thing, but still, I am able to be legally killed by the government if they find me guilty of unlawfully killing someone else. Now, with the me being able to kill part that implies that since I am able to join the military and handle death-inducing-weapons that I can kill. I have been given the power over life and death, legally.

I can have as much sex as I want with those also at the age of consent, which does vary state-to-state but is generally thought of being "absolute" at the age of 18. Absolute meaning I have no worries whatsoever if I have sex with someone who is 18 years old and I am 18 years old, or older. At least, so long as it's not rape...then we have problems...but you understand what I mean.

I can kill myself. I'm not talking about suicide, well... in a way I am... but instead I'm talking about doing an activity that can and has lead to death...many deaths. That would be caused by smoking cigarrettes.

Oh my!

But I am unable to drink alcohol?

Wow, life's a bitch.

Why is the age 21 and not 18 anyways?

Traffic accidents and binge drinking.

No kidding. I think it's safe to say and/or assume that once you hit the magical age of 21 you'll not do these things anymore.

EDIT: Finally I have the motivation to continue this posting.

A Brief History of the Drinking Age (VERY BRIEF)

In 1984 MADD lobbied the crap out of the government to get the drinking age raised back, federally, to 21 from 18. It was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam war so soldiers (and non-soldiers) could drink legally as adulthood was lowered from 21 to 18 during that time as well. Yes, prior to 1969 those under 21 were not only NOT allowed to purchase alcohol but they weren't even legal adults! And even prior to that the age was much lower. I don't have the exact dates but the entire idea of adolescense is no more 150 years old!

The rise of child-labor laws actually firmly established "childhood" in a legal context. But then took it away again by forcing children (their wills are not cared for) to attend school until 14 or 16 depending on the state and some states now are wanting to raise the drop-out age to 18 effectively (and actually) eliminating the ability of our young people to drop out of our increasingly prison-like school systems in their own cry for freedom from incarceration for merely committing the offense of being young!

Within the past 150 years childhood and being one has been increasingly criminalized with the sexual consent age in Texas being raised from 12 (in the late 1880s and prior to that I assume there wasn't one) to the eventual 17 it is now. That's right even if it's consensual, even if both parties agree, whether or not you do is irrelevant, they are committing a crime if both parties are under 17 in Texas as it stands now. Medical consent laws are no different, in fact, also in Texas foster-children (those owned by the state... the ultimate form "in loco parentis") have more rights than those owned by their parents! If you're under 18 in Texas, unless you're emancipated and not a foster child you are forbidden from consenting to any medical treatment or refusing that very treatment. There have been some cases outside of Texas, at least I think, where a 17-year old man with leukemia no longer wanted to suffer through chemo and/or radiation therapy and sought to stop it. HE WAS PHYSICALLY FORCED BY THE JUDGE AND DOCTORS TO UNDERGO UNWANTED TREATMENT THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND AN OUTRIGHT VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO GIVE TO SOMEONE OVER 18!

What's wrong with this country?

Why the fuck do we treat our citizens so poorly?

IT NEEDS TO CHANGE NOW!

Abstinence-Only "Education" or "How to pretend like you care about your kids, while not really caring at all."

Everyone has sex!
("Children" included)

Perhaps that should be clear enough for everyone to understand. If not you have severe problems and should get help immediately.

"What happens when people have sex mommy?" a bold child asks her mother.

How does she her mother reply? For those of you who believe in "ignore your hormones, don't have sex" style teaching I assume that this is what you would say. (I wish otherwise...so very very much.)

"My dear child, you do not need to worry your pretty little head about sex right now, you're far to0 young for it, just wait until marriage...and you'll see." she replies.

She doesn't want her daughter to have sex at all. She believes she has instilled upon her good [insert religion here] values. That her daughter will take to the grave. Surely she will listen to her mom and wait until marriage to have sex. Just like any other good daughter.

She would be wrong.

Very wrong.

Like most kids these days, they're having sex. LOTS OF SEX. Like, almost nympomaniac-type sex. Yes, it happens, more often than you think. Your children like sex. Everybody likes sex....everybody has sex.

And for the most part, everyone has babies too...when they have sex. LOTS OF BABIES.

IT'S BABY MAKING TIME.

Sex is awesome. Sex is also natural. Very natural. If your parents didn't have sex...you wouldn't be here. YES, YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU. Think about that!

Am I yelling loud enough? I hope so.

I hope the people back in the Stone Ages can hear me.

HOW DO WE PREVENT THIS BABY MAKING TIME WHILE STILL HAVING A GREAT TIME?

Do I have to answer? Really? I have to? Okay, here goes... this can answered with one word and one ONLY. I don't need to define it but it would be a good idea.

CONTRACEPTION

Was that clear? Concise? Precise? In any way difficult to understand? God, I really hope not. But let's define it:

Contraception
–noun the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

In short-- using something will likely -greatly- reduce the chance of baby-making to occur.

Contraception can involve just things like Birth Control items (be they pills, a shot, a ring etc) or just plain old CONDOMS. You know, the little plastic things you put on your partner's erect penis (if he's too lazy to do it himself).

It's not always 100% but it's better than nothing. (A.K.A. an uncovered/unwrapped PENIS plus not BC in sight! -- Hello new born baby, 9 months later!)

(btw, it's about 79%-99.9% effective depending upon the method used). (Conservative estimate...on the lower end...just for you guys)

Oh and Abstinence-only (IE. NOT HAVING SEX...HAHAHHAHA...yeah right) is not 100% effective.

Hello! Bible! Did you forget the "Virgin" Mary. I know I didn't. Immaculate Conception... XD uhm more like "Ejaculate Conception"...if you know what I mean....

/stops laughing sometime.

So that brings Abstinence-only's effectiveness to about 99.9%... can't help it if God did it!

No, really.

Are people that stupid?

.....oh, wait.....

So, for the people not raging. Let me sum it up for you. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.

Your children will have sex whether you like it or not. They will sneak behind your backs and be WILLFULLY "violated" multiple times and not necessarily by the same partner either o.O (oh snap).

Therefore, you can preach Abstinence all you want...but don't be surprised when your "precious little innocent angel" comes home with a very round stomach.

YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET PREGNANT, THOUGH...WHEN YOU HAVE SEX. (Without Contraception, of any kind... bareback as some might call it.)

That is true. But even if it's your first time... you can still get pregnant.

That is true meaning of sex... PROCREATION!

-If it wasn't so fun...tell me...would anyone "do it"?-

Also, if either one of you or both is/are sterile, no baby-making shall occur. However, STDs like HIV, AIDS and other such nasty diseases can and DO occur. Have fun with that if you find out your "monogamous" partner has cheated on you... and didn't bother to use a CONDOM. "Owned" is a good term to use at this point, should such a situation occur.

Do everyone a favor... and CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN!

Give them Birth Control pills, condoms oh and TEACH THEM ABOUT SEX GODDAMNIT!

/rage

War is Death (But I'd call it Murder)

This blog seems to be taking a slightly different turn-not for the worst. It just cannot be about the things listed on the first post it is much more than that and that's why I'm making this post.

It is Universal and Unchanging - It cannot be denied, misconstrued, altered, fabricated or otherwise changed. War is Death. And everyone knows. Whether the victim is a dreaded "enemy" that horrible horrible person is human too. He or she is human just like you.

The only difference between you two is that the "enemy" is on the wrong side or was raised to believe in something destructive, something violent or perhaps that "enemy" was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why do wars happen?

Because humans are selfish.

What caused the Sept. 11th attacks?

Honestly I don't think anyone can truly answer that save the people that did it. But it was most likely the fact that the Taliban got billions of dollars in aid and weapons from the US and wanted more. They got so much more.

How does war benefit anyone?

It benefits those with the supplies needed to continue the war and the people who would be employed to "work for the war." And the people who would get rich by pillaging the towns and getting all their money and precious artifacts and other needed resources.

Can we ever stop wars?

We cannot stop them from continuing. They will continue until humanity eventually wipes itself out because someone said something bad or blew up some people on a much smaller scale than total annihilation. We can try and stop those in progress... if those in power were the kind to be easily convinced otherwise.

What is the job of a soldier?

To kill.

Simply put that is what they are trained to do. They kill people. They, with the support, backing and orders from their superiors kill people.

Just remember that when you send your son or daughter off to war they may very return to you as murderers.

Isn't the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for our freedom?

That is bullshit. No really it is fucking bullshit. What freedoms are "we" fighting to protect? The Patriot Act summarily removed lots of our freedoms and by the way violates the Constitution. The "terrorists" didn't have to do a thing. Well, they did attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and tried for the White House (Bush wasn't home) but besides the senseless killings we've been pretty good so far. Except for the Patriot Act of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Don't knock wikipedia. They're as good as any chum like me (or better).

Long story short:

Terrorists: 2,974 + (for 911 WTC)
USA: 94,562 for Iraq and counting, over 5000 in Afghanistan
(news reports of civilian deaths in Afghanistan are few and far in between)

I think you know who has more blood on their hands.

Another Debate About the Drinking Age -- Oh and Discrimination, too

So the Amethyst Initiative wants to lower the drinking age from the age of 21 back down to the age of 18 (which is much more reasonable and not as hypocritical) as it was during the conscripted war in Vietnam (if we can force you to kill people or be killed, the least we can do for you is give you a bottle of booze to help you NOT think about all that blood on your hands (or on ours)).

I, of course, totally and completely agree that is should be lowered, as I said before because 18 years olds are legally responsible to themselves, their country and their children (if they have any) so they should be allowed to drink, period.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
–noun
1.an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Now, since those in the "underage" or even "age" (everyone has an age, you can't escape it...unless you lie) category also fall under this category, I do believe nothing more needs to be said. Discrimination is discrimination. And having this blanket law demanding that people not be allowed to put something into their own bodies is far beyond wrong.

Here is a lovely CNN news link that relates to this story. I also have an ireport account and have ireported, I won't tell you who I am just so that you know one of those pro-lowering-the-drinking-age stories is mine.

Birth Control =/= Abortion

I got this email from my mom and I thought I should post it. For those of you too lazy to read here is a summary: Bush wants birth control to be considered the same as abortions. Therefore doctors and insurance companies could make it even harder if not impossible for women to either get access to it or be given family planning...family planning! I assume by family planning they mean tell the soon-to-be-mother how to raise the kid and get access to pre and post natal care. (It appears to me that the staunch Christians want you to be on your own...yes even if you're married.) I could be wrong but that's what I heard.

Take Action. Save the Children! (This is meant to be sarcastic)

HHS Needs a News Flash: Birth Control is NOT Abortion

This summer, women's rights advocates discovered an impending administration attack on birth control. After hearing a multitude of protests, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services blogs that it wasn't his intent.

Let's make sure it isn't. Take action NOW!

Action Needed:

Tell Mike Leavitt: "Birth control isn't abortion. Period. No matter how you try to explain it, this proposal will undermine women's access to birth control and other reproductive health care services -- so DROP this idea immediately."

Send an email to Secretary Leavitt!

Post a comment on Secretary Leavitt's blog!

In July, advocates learned of a draft administrative regulation which -- if implemented as written -- could:

1) Effectively redefine abortion to include commonly used contraceptive methods, and would discourage medical providers from offering those contraceptives. This expanded definition of abortion will discourage doctors and health care clinics from providing birth control products to women who need them, out of fear of losing critical federal funds.

2) Force family planning clinics to hire personnel who are anti-birth-control? No kidding! The drafted regulation would also have required agencies that receive family planning funding to certify that they will not discriminate in hiring people who object to abortion or who object to dispensing birth control on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

3) Result in a dramatic influx of federal funding to fake clinics -- so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that provide no family planning or abortion services, and often provide false and misleading information to women.

When all of this was pointed out to Leavitt, in letters from Congress, in comments posted on his blog, and in petitions circulated by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), he backtracked -- but the draft regulations haven't yet been changed. And according to the Washington Post, Clinton and Murray aren't satisfied, writing to Leavitt: "We remain concerned by the regulations' potential to create barriers for women seeking health care, to jeopardize federal programs that provide family planning services and to disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control."

TAKE ACTION NOW -- Send an email to Secretary Leavitt or post a comment on his blog urging him to drop the proposed regulation altogether.

Background:

The draft regulation, prepared by the Bush Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and currently circulating among anti-women officials, redefines abortion as, "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." Taking a page from the extremist right, they are deliberately blurring the lines between contraception and abortion, providing an extraordinarily broad definition of abortion that could be interpreted to cover various forms of birth control, including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUD's), and emergency contraception.

This draft regulation requires entities and individuals that receive family planning funding to certify that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion or to dispensing birth control on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Under the guise of passing anti-discrimination laws to protect health care providers participating in federal programs, the proposed regulation would effectively undermine a health care provider's ability to offer the very services for which they are funded, as well as a patient's ability to access those services. All health care providers must be able to appropriately screen and hire individuals capable and willing to perform the core services that they provide.

The regulation puts laws and policies that protect women's access to birth control in serious jeopardy, including state laws that require hospitals to provide sexual-assault survivors with access to emergency contraception. The draft rule limiting Title X funding will create a direct conflict between Title X (America's Family Planning Program) and the Maternal Child Health and Medicaid programs, which requires that grantees provide a broad range of contraceptive services and supplies to their patients.

Currently, there are "crisis pregnancy centers" in communities across the country that look like health care centers, but deliver woefully incomplete care and only provide the reproductive health care options that fit their agenda: NO birth control, NO abortion -- and NO choice for women and families who need it! If Bush's proposed regulation takes effect, these "crisis pregnancy centers" are likely to receive a massive influx of our tax dollars.

At a time when 17 million women are in need of publicly-supported reproductive health care services, this regulation disparately impacts the low-income, uninsured and under-insured women who rely on these programs for their health information and services!

TAKE ACTION NOW -- Tell Secretary Leavitt that his staff should be fired if they really circulated this draft regulation without his knowledge. He should drop this whole idea.

The Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative - Stop me if I'm getting too off topic

Ok, this isn't exactly a joke. Or the beginning of one. Nor am I trying to offend anyone considering themselves to be a "Conservative."

Let me remind all you (I don't believe I have an audience yet, but someday, someone will discover this blog, and may or may not be offended by it...if so...deal with it) I am no expert in anything, save common sense and the definition of liberty--freedom.

As I am uneducated here is my definition of a "Conservative" (with the help of http://www.dictionary.com/)

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Ok so in layman's English that means someone who DOES NOT LIKE CHANGE.

The definition of a "Liberal" is: (sorry I like all these definitions too much to leave any of them out)

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.	(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.	of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.	favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.	favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.	of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7.	free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8.	open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9.	characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10.	given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11.	not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12.	of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13.	of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

14.	a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15.	(often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

FOR THOSE WHO HATE READING (get out of my blog you lazy bums)

Conservative = No Change (which means if your leader is dictator...DON'T DO ANYTHING)
Liberal = Give me Liberty of Give me Death. aka Personal freedom

Who hates Liberty? Honestly? Oh, the Conservatives want to restrict personal freedoms as much as possible. Since when was that cool?

Never

That's when. I like being free. Freedom is awesome. You like freedom too, don't you?

I thought so.