Another day, another massacre

I was planning on spending this post writing about the fact that my latest foster dog has been adopted. I was planning on writing this post about how excited I am to foster Allie. I was planning on writing about how happy I am that hockey is back. Instead, I'm having a hard time finding words to help me deal with yet another senseless attack and learning that thirteen people are dead from this shooting in my hometown, Washington DC.

Another shooting. Another mass killing. And, just like every other time this has happened, I can't help but wonder when this will stop being the norm for our country. When will we accept that something must change when twelve innocent people can be killed on a military base? When will we realize that there needs to be some sort of regulation as to the selling of an automatic weapon? When are we going to realize that just because "other people" have guns we should allow everyone to have guns?

Schools aren't safe. Movie theaters aren't safe. College campuses aren't safe. Office buildings aren't safe. Parks aren't safe. And even military bases are no longer safe. We can't feel safe anywhere because, in the back of our mind, we're conditioned to worry about this happening to us. We've gotten to the point that we all like to think we know how we would react when we're caught in this type of hell. It is now something that we have all, consciously or not, planned to happen in our lives.

Now is not the time for me or you to talk about how guns should be outlawed. Today, tomorrow, no time this week should be spent making this into a political issue. We need to spend time allowing the hundreds of people that lost a loved one time to grieve. We need to give the Navy Yard time to go back to as close to normal as possible. While none of the three thousand people there will ever forget what happened yesterday, they need time to heal.

What we do need to start doing is looking at our attitude that has us as a country fighting each other. There can't possibly be any sort of change in this mindset of fear when we can't even talk to each other about this problem. The fact that I'm worried about even putting into print that I think there needs to be serious reform around weapons is quite sad. But we need to at least start talking to each other about this. Not yelling. Not screaming. Not calling each other murders. Not claiming everyone is taking away your rights. We need an honest to god conversation about the atrocities that are happening every few months on our own American soil. We need to look at how we each individually are treating this. We need to look at our own attitudes, not wait for the other side to "come around."

I'm tired of turning on the news to hear of yet another shooting. I'm sick of spending my days trying to get in touch with family and friends that were in the area. I'm tired of reading articles about "How to Talk to Your Children About Tragedy". I'm so unbelievably tired of wondering when this is going to happen again.

As the "land of the free" we spend too much time in fear for ourselves and our loved ones.

When did protecting women mean taking away their choice?

Look, Texas, I love you. I might not have been born and raised here, I might not even have really even liked living here when I first moved here (who really enjoys 100+ heat in the summer?) but this is my home. I know that this is still a very Republican state and as a Democrat my voice is not very loud or even likely to be heard. But let me take the time to tell you that you have got to stop trying to limit my rights as a woman.

When Wendy Davis stood up for 13 hours and talked to the Senate about how terrible SB5 was, you tried to impose rules that you don't impose on the male members of the Senate when they decide to filibuster a bill. Male members were allowed to try and talk over her, interrupt her and completely ignore the other members that were trying to speak out in support of Davis. Then, after it was past time to vote, you went ahead and let the vote happen. Supports of Davis lined the walkways circling the gallery and yet you ignored them in order to try and push this through. When it was determined that the vote was void and the bill was dead, our Governor Perry decided to call a special session beginning July 1 to consider this bill again.

I'm really baffled by Republicans in the Senate that keep saying that the government needs to stay out of citizens' lives but then create (and pass) legislation like SB5 that trample all over a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Let me explain something to you, Texas, I know my body better than you do. I know what I need to eat, what exercise I need, what birth control suits me best, and even what sort of medical care I need. Let me decide what I do with it. If I know I am not fit to be a mother, let me make that choice. I know you don't want to have people on Welfare and other government programs, so allow me to make the choice that will keep me off of them. Doesn't that sound better?

I know that there are some politicians like Sen. Jodie Laudenburg seem to think that even something as procedural as a rape kit can cause an abortion, and there are other Senators elsewhere that seem to think that the female body can even stop a pregnancy from happening in the instances of "real" rape, so maybe it would be best for politicians to stop trying to create legislation about something that they don't understand. Did you realize that, while SB5 says abortions after 20 weeks after conception will not be allowed, it is scientifically impossible to determine the date of conception? Did you realize that most women don't consider having an abortion without serious consideration of their actions?  And can I let you in on a little secret? Banning abortions won't mean abortions don't happen. It means that they don't happen in a safe environment. It means they will happen illegally. It means they will be dangerous. It means women will travel out of state in order to obtain an abortion.

So, Texas, instead of revisiting a bill that that the people have made it clear they don't want, maybe you could spend your time in the special session working on issues that we actually need to focus on. Could you maybe spend some time looking at the fact that the education system in Texas is laughable at best? I don't think I'm asking too much here. I'm only asking for you to recognize your own rules and your own voting rules. Texas, I know we don't always see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, but can you just take the time to look at how unabashedly wrong this is? The people literally spoke and you didn't listen. People chose to stand with Wendy Davis both in Austin and across the nation.

I know a lot of Texas is a believer of the "right of the fetus" argument, but it is, pardon my French, absolute bullshit. Let me ask you something, if I have a baby in one hand and a petri dish with 1,000 embryos in it and I drop them both, which one would you rush to catch? 

Farwell Privacy, Hello Orwellian Society

When the report was released last week that Verizon has been forced to hand over data for it's users, I was appalled. Not only as a Verizon customer, but as an American.

It is pretty obvious that I don't mind living a public life. If I didn't, I wouldn't have a blog and twitter and utilize various other social media platforms. But I have the ability to decide what I share. If I have a bad day at work, I can keep it to myself. If I'm dealing with a personal crisis, I don't have to disclose that to the world. But I have the ability to decide what information is public knowledge.

The court order gives the NSA access to the people on the call, the location, the duration, and the time of the call. It does not force Verizon to divulge the contents of the calls. But this court order is for all customers, whether or not they are actually suspected of doing anything wrong. These customers are being spied on with no real reason for this to be allowed. Verizon was expressly forbidden to announce to its customers that this request or court order was even a concern. This data was collected for calls in and out of the country.

Finding out that my civil liberties have been violated in such a way is a disgusting feeling. To think that companies haven't been spying on us for years is a delusion that most people have given up on. We all have come to accept that companies like Google track our internet footprint in order to market to us better. Microsoft and X-Box have announced that the new X-Box will be connected to the internet constantly and will be spying on its users. Stories pop up every day about companies doing this. But for the government to be secretly gathering information (and forbidding the corporation from informing its customers of this) is a massive violation of our Constitutional rights. And while the court order does not directly give the NSA the allowance to listen in to calls, who is to say that they really haven't been?

Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox news "I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States." I can't seem to wrap my head around this statement. It is a huge violation of our rights to have the NSA gathering this information, but, on the off chance it does help, it is okay? (And besides, anyone that's seen NCIS know that terrorists and criminals use burn phones.) Sen. Saxby Chambiliss went so far as to say "This has been going on for seven years." So I guess we should just let it go because it has been happening without our knowledge?

I've been disappointed with Verizon for a while now. And, even though they really had no say in the matter, I'm disgusted that this has been allowed to happen. This is an excessive measure that takes the way our freedom and liberties in the name of "freedom" and "security". Some politicians are saying that this is to protect Americans from terrorists and various other "bad guys." But how long before these "bad guys" turn into people that don't agree with the government? How long before it is people like you or me that oppose policies and politicians and laws currently in place?

I've given serious thought to leaving Verizon because of this policy. But the thing is, who is to say whether or not this is happening to other carrier like AT&T or T-Mobile or Sprint? They may issue a statement saying they would never do this to their customers, but I don't know if that could be trusted. After all, Verizon was explicitly forbidden from informing their customers that this was happening. Who is to say that other companies aren't under the same sort of gag order?

Something needs to be done to stop this sort of action from continually happening to citizens. Citizens do not need this sort of surveillance. Protecting national security and protecting the status quo are not the same thing, but those in power may be unable to make the distinction.

First Reaction: Kindle Worlds

Like many other people across the interwebs, I heard about Amazon's "Kindle Worlds" today. For those that haven't heard, Amazon is opening a self-submission platform for authors of fanfiction to submit their work to be paid for it.

Amazon Publishing has secured licenses from Warner Bros. Television Group’sAlloy Entertainment division for its New York Times best-selling book series Gossip Girl, by Cecily von Ziegesar; Pretty Little Liars, by Sara Shepard; and Vampire Diaries, by L.J. Smith; and plans to announce more licenses soon. Through these licenses, Kindle Worlds will allow any writer to publish authorized stories inspired by these popular Worlds and make them available for readers to purchase in the Kindle Store.

The content guidelines for the program are listed on Amazon's website as follows:

• Pornography: We don't accept pornography or offensive depictions of graphic sexual acts.

• Offensive Content: We don’t accept offensive content, including but not limited to racial slurs, excessively graphic or violent material, or excessive use of foul language.

• Illegal and Infringing Content: We take violations of laws and proprietary rights very seriously. It is the authors' responsibility to ensure that their content doesn't violate laws or copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity, or other rights.

• Poor Customer Experience: We don't accept books that provide a poor customer experience. Examples include poorly formatted books and books with misleading titles, cover art, or product descriptions. We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience.

• Excessive Use of Brands: We don’t accept the excessive use of brand names or the inclusion of brand names for paid advertising or promotion.

• Crossover: No crossovers from other Worlds are permitted, meaning your work may not include elements of any copyright-protected book, movie, or other property outside of the elements of this World.

Even at first glance, Kindle Worlds seems like it benefits the corporations more than it does the author. Not only because of the ridiculous guidelines, but due to the fact that once an author submits the work, the characters and storylines they have created no longer belong to them. It seems like this is just an easy way for Warner Bros. to gather ideas for future episodes of their shows. Isn't that what they hire writers for? Authors that have their work selected will not get any form of compensation if their story/characters are used.

Amazon wont allow any sort of crossovers (ex: SuperWhoLock) because they don't have the licenses they would need, meaning some of my favorite authors won't be able to use the platform. Amazon won't allow any sort of pornography, but who is to decide what crosses the line in literature as to what is pornographic? Also, what is decided as "offensive"? Who is setting these standards? What I may find completely fine, others may find offensive, who is to decide the line? Are AU's (alternate universes) allowed even though they aren't part of the original World? Whoever is going to have the job of reading thousands of fanfictions are going to have quite the task ahead of them.

As it stands, there are many, many places fans can go to read fanfiction. They can go to AO3, tumblr, and FanFiction and read whatever they want. For free. So why would they want to go elsewhere and read fanfiction that is heavily regulated and pay for content? I'm all for giving authors that create some of my favorite fanfictions a way to make money off of their content. What I do not like is the fact that whereas fanfiction was a labor of love, is now becoming a way for people to try and make money. Whereas fans would create these amazing stories simply because they loved the universe and characters, it is now about making money. And making money for the company, not the author.

Many, many other people have already made the point that if Amazon and Warner Bros are attempting to stop the creation of "illegal" fanfiction, this is surely going to fail. The thousands of people out there typing up stories as I type this won't simply stop because of this. Websites devoted to solely publishing fanfiction aren't going to turn off their servers. Most fandoms will simply continue on as usual without this ever being an issue. Why? Because people like crossovers. Fans like AU's. Fans like things that may be offensive or graphic or even (gasp) pornographic. We know what our OTP's and ships are. Opening up this platform for companies to make money off of fans with little in return won't change any of that.

I'll be interested to see where this goes and how Amazon tries to expand this platform. But I don't see myself ever actually using it.

Today we saw the worst of humanity

This has been a pretty terrible day for everyone in the country, hell the world. The bombs that went off in Boston this afternoon don't just affect them, it affects all of us. And it is times like these that show who we really are as people. As humans

And I must say, I've been thoroughly disappointed with humanity today.

Apparently it isn't bad enough that over 80 people were injured today. It isn't bad enough that two people have died. It isn't bad enough that one of the dead is an 8 year old little boy. It isn't enough that a city was sent into a panic. It isn't enough that we, as a nation, are mourning this tragedy. We have to turn this into a political, racist, disgusting event that makes everyday people call perfect strangers terrible things.

Just like every other tragedy, the news tried and failed to report on this as it happened. Reporters and journalists all wanted to be the first one to have information, regardless of whether it was true or not. People were reporting that buildings were being bombed, when in reality they just had a small maintenance fire. People were reporting that a man was arrested and in custody just a few hours after the attacks. People were reporting that 12 were dead when emergency responders were still trying to figure out what was happening. There were numerous reports that all turned out to be false today.

And you know what, when they're trying to give people like you and me information immediately, journalists are going to make mistakes. I know that. I'm not expecting every report to be completely accurate when tragedy strikes. But I do expect them to redact misinformation. I do expect new casters to not blatantly lie about someone of a certain ethnicity to be in custody and arrested. These same news outlets don't correct the information to say that a citizen saw an ethnic man running from a bomb blast a tackled him. He was tackled because of his ethnicity. He was tackled by a citizen like you or me because of the color of his skin.

That is wrong.

And this story is still developing. No one knows what all happened today. It will be a while before we all know. Buy the way people reacted to that news was disgusting. And anyone that tried to correct that information was a terrorist. Or a Muslim supporter. Or a Muslim terrorist supporter. Or part of a sleeper cell. Or deserved to die. (Yeah, these are all things I've been called in the last three hours for trying to point out that story was false.) And you know what, that is really disappointing. Humanity was at its worst today.

This was an act of terrorism. Thousands of people were terrified. These innocent people were terrorized. The person or persons responsible for an eight years old boy losing his life need to be punished. I will never deny that. But maybe, when something as terrible as this happens, we need to learn to come together and not tear each other apart. We need to be better than this.

This is still all developing. This is still fresh and raw. And it hurts.

But we need to stop lashing out in hurt and fear and anger at each other. We need to be there for the people that need us. Those that were effected by this tragedy need the rest of us. They need our support.

Not our hate.

This is about equality

Starting today, the Supreme Court of the United States is going to be listening to arguments about Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Pretty much, they're going to make the decision about marriage equality in this country.

What enrages me is the fact that this has even needed to go to the SCOTUS. I remember reading this little phrase as a kid and thinking that this was really the answer to this question of marriage equality. I know its not a very well know sentence but it stuck with me. It means that all United States citizens are allowed the same rights. It means we are all granted the same equal rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." 

I know, as a country we've really had to struggle and fight to make sure the color of a person's skin and what's between their legs isn't what's going to make them a person. I know getting equal rights is still something we fight for every day. Women still fight for equal rights and equal pay. People of different nationalities are still fighting to be treated the same as a white man. But the situations for all people (except maybe the white, land-owning male) has really improved in this country. Equality is something that everyone agrees on, equality is a good thing. We all deserve to be treated equally and given the same equal rights and equal opportunities.

So why are we even discussing whether or not people of the same sex should have the right to get married?

Is it because marriage is a "Christian institution" so they get to decide who can get married? No. Because people in other religions and in other countries get married all the time. People with no religion get married in this country all the time. Marriage is by no means a Christian institution. If you're going to sit back and tell me that marriage is a Christian institution and they get to decide the rules, then you're also telling me that this is a Christian nation and Christians are the ones to make the rules. But they aren't.

One of the founding principles of this country is the separation of Church and State. Many of the people that founded this country fled their homes in other countries in search of a place they could worship or not worship what they wanted without fear of persecution. By turning a secular thing like marriage into a religious institution wherein they get to make the rules breaks this simple principal. It means that anyone that gets married must be a Christian or its not a "real" marriage.

Every American citizen is allowed the same set of inalienable rights. This is what this country was built on. Are homosexual men not citizens? Are homosexual women not citizens? Just because someone is bisexual, they're not a citizen? Just because they're transgender, they don't matter? Its time we as a country realize that just because someone loves someone you don't think they should love learn to just say... Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because it is of no concern who other people love.

And if you want to tell me that these couples really don't need to get married, I'm calling BS. Not only because you're denying them a right that they should have as an American citizen, but because there are things that are granted to married couples in this country that a same-sex couple can't have because of who they love. Don't believe me, read up here about some of the benefits of marriage. How could the SCOTUS say that it is in fact constitutional to deny American citizens these rights?

I really hope in the (near) future students will read their textbooks in school about this time in our history when these couples had to fight so hard to be able to love people and look back with the same disgust that we look back on the fight of African Americans. These are basic rights. By denying them you are saying that we are not all equal.

This isn't that hard, people. Love is love.

Don't Rape

Just like everyone else, I've been following the Steubenville trial of the two high school athletes that raped a 16 year old girl and then spent the next few days bragging about it through text messages, videos, and pictures. And I've been absolutely appalled at the message that people have been sending out.

While a CNN corespondent was in a broadcast saying how sad she felt for these boys and how their lives were just absolutely ruined by the verdict and people around the country are lamenting this decision, I think these boys got off easy. These boys made the decision to rape a girl. Then they bragged about it. How can anyone feel bad for them. Go ahead and read some of these text messages and tell me they didn't deserve to be tried as adults and convicted of a longer sentence. And that's only a a small part of the 1500 text messages these men sent.

But, other than the "Oh these poor boys" attitude that people seem to have, I'm even more furious about the response of people that this girl should have done something different.

Yes, she shouldn't have been drinking to the point where she was barely conscious especially at 16. But that doesn't excuse what these men did to her. But this happens all the time. Not just this highly publicized case. But all the damn time. Women are raped and its their fault because they should have stopped it.

There's this attitude that apparently women shouldn't dress a certain way or they will be raped. They shouldn't act a certain way or they will be raped. They shouldn't drink or they will be raped. They shouldn't go out alone or they will be raped. Women have to go out in groups and stick together or one of them will be raped. When walking to and from your car, house, shop, garbage bin women have to be aware of their surroundings because anyone could rape them because they weren't paying attention. Women have to take self defense courses in order to prepare themselves for the time a rapist decides to come after them because if they're not prepared, its their fault and they should have been prepared. If you don't explicitly say "No" you are giving your consent.

Not only is this logic absolute bullshit, its also insulting to men everywhere.

Women are taught that they have to be prepared in every circumstance for a man to attack them. If a woman is wearing certain things or acts a certain way, it means that she has provoked a man to attack her. It means that the general position of a man is to have sex with a woman unless he is otherwise told no. It means that men are nothing more than some uncontrollable sex fiend that have to be protected from these women that dress and act a certain way. Its insulting to men to say that they simply can't control themselves when women do certain things.

This society seems bound and determined to make rape a woman's fault. If a woman is raped because she is at a party and is too drunk to say no, it is her fault because she should have stayed with friends that should have protected her and she shouldn't have been drinking so much. This happens to women more often than people would like to believe. I would be willing to bet that you know someone that this has happened to. And when this woman tried to say she was raped, people told her it was all her fault because she got drunk and she should have known better. I know because I've been there.

People don't like to talk about the fact that this standard teaching of "Don't get raped" is offensive to both men and women alike. Instead of teaching that, how about we start telling people "Don't rape." Wouldn't that  solve the problem?

We should start teaching that if a person is too drunk to say no, it means no. If a person says "I don't think so" or "maybe not" because they're too afraid to actually say no, it means no. If a person is in any way showing that they don't want to have sex, don't have sex with them. It doesn't matter what they're wearing, what they're doing, what they're saying, or even if they're alone. Don't have sex with people if they don't give consent. If you don't have consent, don't video tape it and post it on the internet. Don't text your friends bragging about it. Don't send pictures of your "conquest."

Just act like a decent human being.

My thoughts go out to those in Newtown

This morning, our company lost all connection to email, our network and the internet. And since we don't really have great service in the office (I think because they want people to stay off social media... oops), I had absolutely no idea what had happened in Newtown this morning. And when I found out about this tragic shooting around 1:00 this afternoon, my heart absolutely broke.

This is just a awful, horrific tragedy. Sadly, the reporting of this shooting has also been terrible. The reports were originally stating that Ryan Lanza was the shooter, then they claimed it was his brother. The counts of those involved ranges anywhere from 18-27. And the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is the fact that every major news station is trying to interview the children at the school. At most school shootings, they do try to talk with the students. But most school shootings seem to happen at a high school or college level. Not at an elementary school. Reading and watching these reporters trying to interview children that have just been through such a terrifying and traumatic experience is disgusting.

When something like this happens, reporters and news stations should not be interviewing people for shock value in order to bolster their ratings. Just the same that people should not try to say what the cause of this event was. Not the police. Not the reporters. And most of all, not the rest of us that are watching this unfold. Who are we as the "internet people" to take the news and report on it? Who are we to find a random person on twitter named "Ryan Lanza" and start harassing him for this only to realize this guy just happens to have the same name? Who are we to start telling people they aren't mourning "the right way"? Who are we to try and find the single cause of all of this?

Yes, it seems that this shooter was mentally unstable and needed treatment. No, this is not the time to push your agenda of the failed healthcare system in the US. Yes, it is obvious this man should never have been able to purchase a gun. No, this is not the time for you to say we need to rid the country of all guns. Yes, politicians are the ones that decide which laws are put into place. No, it is not their fault that this man killed so many innocent, young children. People are trying to blame healthcare, gun control, video games, the NRA, politicians and lobbyists. But no, there isn't one single cause for this.

Its natural that we want someone to answer for the loss of life. We can't put the shooter on trial since he was killed during this massacre (at this time it is not clear whether this was suicide or not). We as a country are outraged that this could happen in what should be one of the safest places for children. Children and parents should never have to worry about the safety of a school, an elementary school at the very least. We're all looking for someone to blame for this and there isn't anyone. And this is not the only time this happens. We all know that shootings are a fairly frequent thing and school shootings are also not unheard of here.

Maybe instead of blaming everyone, we lend our support to those in Newtown? Whatever needs to be done for those parents and families should be a priority right now. Maybe we should start questioning how we let 20 innocent children get murdered in cold blood and then turn this into a political issue. Maybe we should look at the fact that within a matter of hours stations were looking to increase ratings by interviewing the fucking children that just witnessed a shooting. Maybe we should talk about what we can do to help the parents and families that were affected and not try to push our own agenda. Maybe we should try to step back and evaluate the facts before reporting on every little snippet of information before reporting it as news to a country that is devastated and looking for answers. Maybe we should question how we as a society know that this is not the first school shooting that we've had.

Or maybe we should all just get together and cry. Because, honestly, that's what I want to do. I want to cry and check on the few kids that are in my life. I want to make sure these kids know they're loved.

My thoughts are with everyone in Newtown.

A journalist's responsibility

Journalists are meant to be the people that report on the world around us, without bias, with all of the facts available. A major newspaper such as the New York Post should have the ability to determine whether an article or a picture should be used. When a tragedy such happens, journalists have the obligation to report on it and newspapers have the obligation to present the information to their readers. When an incident such as the man who was pushed in front of a subway is killed occurs, there is no question about whether this should be reported. But should the photograph of the man in his last moments of life be published?

The story of the man that was pushed in front of the train definitely needed to be covered by news agencies. This was a tragic story of an innocent man that was pushed in front of a train and then killed. Even worse? The man that committed this act was not apprehended on the scene and was still roaming the streets of New York. Journalists were publishing photographs of the man that committed the act and spreading the story in order to make people aware of this event and to find the man. New Yorkers needed to know about this story. Newspapers and websites everywhere were reporting on this event. The actual reporting done is not what is questionable. What is questionable is whether the New York Post should have published the photograph of the man just moments before his death.

Photojournalists have long held the belief that they should only photograph and not interfere with the subject that they are photographing. It is not uncommon for photojournalists to feel that it is their job to only report on a story and if they interfere and help out, they are changing the story. By changing a story, there is a conflict about whether the journalist even has the right to report on a story. It has long been a challenge in photojournalism when reporters are in war zones and third world countries and are forced to only report on the terrible things they see. When natural disasters hit and people are struggling in the aftermath, a journalist may want to help but they must realize that they are helping more by simply raising awareness of the situation. As a caring human being, a reporter or journalist may want to help everyone they see, but they simply don’t have the resources to do so. They also want to present the scene they are seeing in the most unbiased way possible.  

Does this philosophy still apply to a situation such as the photojournalist who saw the train coming for the man who had been pushed? Should he have acted differently? Should he have helped the man? Should he have put his camera down? Should anyone else that was close to the man have tried to help? According to the journalist’s story, he was trying to help. Umar Abbasi says that he was not trying to take a picture of Ki Suk Han. He was only using his flash on his camera in order to get the train conductor’s attention and to try and alert him that something was wrong. Abbasi claims he was trying to help in the only way he could because he was simply too far away to lend a hand himself. Even the New York Post has stated that Abbasi did not have the strength to lift him even if he was close enough to help.

While the general consensus is that this photograph should never have been taken, there is little question about the inaction of the people around. Why did none of the other people waiting for the train try to help? Abbasi has made it clear that he was simply too far away to physically help the man; he was firing off shots with his flash to alert the conductor. He also has stated that there were many other people around that also did not help Ki Suk Han. Where is the public outcry about the inaction of all of those that stood by and watched this happen? Where is the outcry about the man who did get away? It seems this is just another instance of people waiting for someone else to do the right thing.

So where does this leave the photograph of Ki Suk Han’s last moments on earth? Did the New York Post have an obligation to post this photograph? Or were they simply trying to use this photograph to generate sales? The public outcry about this photograph is loud and most people seem to feel that this should not have been taken let alone published. The New York Post seems to have forgotten about the family of this man. Instead of remembering him as he left for work, his family will now forever have the lasting image of their father and husband just moments before his death. There is no thought about the lasting effects this will have on his family and friends. The Post should have known better than to run such a graphic image across their paper only the day after his death. The Post never once thought about the fact that this image is not something the public needed to see. Why was there instead not a picture of the man who pushed Ki Suk Han? Why was there simply not a recent picture of the man with a small article about his life and speaking of what a tragedy this is?

If this was a widespread problem that happened several times a day and there were hundreds of people pushing others in front of subways, this might have been appropriate to run. If this was not an isolated incident with one mentally ill man, this might have been appropriate to run. Since this was a single attack, this should picture should never have been published. This does not depict a tragedy that all New Yorkers should be wary of; this is one sick man that did a terrible thing. There is no reason any print or broadcasting agency should have ever shown such a graphic and terrifying picture of this man’s final moments.

Photographers and photojournalists often have to struggle with the proper way to deal with a situation they are in. Everyday citizens are also forced to deal with this question. The New York Post also has to deal with the question of how to handle pictures and stories that are insensitive and grotesque. The only person it seems that made any move to help was the photographer. And he will forever have to live with the fact that he was the one who that the last moments of a man’s life. People reading the story can all claim how they would or would not have handled the situation if they were on that platform.  The truth is, no one will ever know until they are faced with that situation. 

HCR and PPACA

In May, I left my previous job as an Executive Assistant for a property management company and started a job as Marketing Assistant at a corporate benefits consulting firm. This job, while extremely challenging and difficult has really been a great opportunity. Not only because its a great job and all that, but I now actually understand medical. dental, vision, life, disability, LTC, and pretty much any other benefit that a company would like to offer for their company. Also, I also have the ability to actually understand what the hell is happening with Health Care Reform and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

You know, that thing that most people have just stuck to calling "Obamacare." 

Honestly, I'm absolutely sick of hearing people trying to talk about it like they actually know what is happening. This morning we spent just under three hours with one of our lawyers and he went pretty in detail about what to expect the next two years and what the regulations actually are and what really is going to happen. It was one of the most exhausting meetings I've been in just for the sheer volume of information. Even though I still have a bit of a headache from everything that's going to happen, I'm really glad we had that meeting. 

There is a large number of people that like to write articles about what you should expect in 2013 and 2014 with healthcare reform and I would say (at a rough estimate) 90% of these people are talking out of their ass. These people like to regurgitate the exact same non-information that has been presented over and over before. Very few of them have actually read PPACA or any of the announcements and rulings that have been made about it. We (meaning me and the company I work for) can't have such a luxury. We have to read this. We have to know exactly what is happening. We have to be able to advise our clients. And knowing as much as I do about the coming six years in healthcare really has me worried about the amount of misinformation out there about it. I'm really more concerned with the sheer amount of outright lies being told to the US public about what the ramifications will be. I'm concerned about the fact that people blindly read and watch these major news networks and accept their word as gospel when they don't have the slightest clue what is happening.

I'm not going to tell you all the caveats about HCR and PPACA for two simple reasons: 

1. Did I mention we were in a three hour meeting today discussing it and my head still hurts? Its complicated stuff.
2. I like my job

But I can tell you all this: Don't blindly accept that everyone's insurance rates are going to be rising exponentially and companies are going to start getting rid of benefits. That's not going to happen. Health care  will increase, but mostly due to the fact that there are going to be a lot of people that don't have insurance that now will and a lot of previous limits are no longer there. So there is a big risk that underwriters (the people that determine your rates) can't account for. 

If you would like more information about what's actually happening, I would suggest reading the actual bills. Anyone that says that this program is going to cripple the country or bankrupt the country obviously doesn't know anything about PPACA. I'd be more than happy to explain what is really happening with anyone that has questions, just obviously not in a blog post where you might be able to take it as legal counsel. If you're a business owner, I would suggest hiring someone in this business (a corporate benefits consulting firm) to help you navigate the next few years. Don't try to do it on your own.

(I do know of a great company that could help you all out...)

Celebrity Affairs

It seems everywhere I turn, I can't help but encounter news about a certain CIA Director's affair turned scandal. And you know what? I couldn't possibly care less about it.

Why are we so bombarded with "news" about the fact that this many, and any other powerful figure, has an affair? What does this matter? From the little bit that I've gathered about the man, he seems to be a hard working, dedicated man that did a great job while serving as a General and as the director of the CIA. You know what this story proves about him? He had the opportunity to have an affair with a woman that was writing a biography about him.

I'm going to guess if she's writing a book about him, they're going to spend a lot of time together. These two probably corresponded a lot. These two probably spent a long time talking and getting to know each other. What started out as a respect probably was easily turned into a school-girl-type crush. There was opportunity. So they started to have an affair. And now it seems this man's career is over? For having a consensual relationship with a woman? Really? This is news? The woman wasn't trying to extract military secrets out of him. They were just sleeping together.

Yes, if this affair happened while the Petraeus was in the military it would be a violation of the military code of conduct. But is having an affair illegal? No. Is this a terrible thing for his wife to be caught up in? Of course. But is this news? No. What happens in this man's personal life is not, by any standard, news.

And for that matter, I don't care about any actor, musician, politician, teacher, or street performer that has an affair with a consenting adult. Because that isn't news. News stations are so oblivious to real tragedies happening in the world but they can't miss a story about someone even remotely well known that was unfaithful. There are still thousands of people suffering from Hurricane Sandy yet they are almost nonexistent in the news. That news is so last week. There are millions suffering from violence, starvation, poor healthcare, lack of freedom and this is what is plastered all over every major news organization? There is a looming fiscal cliff, a war that might be ending soon, Guantanamo Bay still open, and a Congress that refuses to work together in our own country and this is what people want to focus on?

Maybe it isn't just politics that need to be revamped, maybe the priorities of Americans need to be changed if we want to see change within our country.

Get Your Boehner out of my Uterus

When Obama was campaigning in order to gain the Presidential nomination and later the actual race to the White House, he made the same promise many Democrats who came before him promised: There will be national healthcare. During the short time that he had a Democratic House and Senate, Obama shocked the nation by pushing this through and being able to provide a national health care bill. Republicans have never been happy about this fact. Now, with the next Presidential election approaching, they have decided to deem this health care bill a “War on Religion” due to the fact that religious institutions would be required to offer birth control to any women they employ. Republicans have recently taken up the great call to interfere with women’s rights, most notably their right to birth control. By taking up these causes, Republican leaders are taking away the rights that women have fought for years to attain.

The Roman Catholic Church has opposed birth control use for decades. Pope Paul VI reiterated the Roman Catholic Church’s view in 1968 when he issued the Humanae Vitae. It is one of the core beliefs of their faith that life begins at conception, thus birth control of any sort is destroying this sacred life. Pope Paul VI also stated that sex is meant only for natural procreation, thereby condemning extramarital sex, premarital sex, and sex for pleasure. If the government is forcing all American companies and places of employment to provide birth control to their female employees, then this is a direct violation of the Church and should not be upheld. Even the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Forcing the Roman Catholic Church to distribute birth control and go against their doctrine is breaking this core foundation of the nation. The roman Catholic Church has ignored the fact that there is great disparity between the rich and the poor, another pillar of the Catholic faith. There have been hundreds of thousands of people crying out about the income disparity, yet the Church has remained oddly silent. Even though it has recently been widely publicized that roughly 98% of Catholic women use some form of birth control, contraception is still an issue that the Church feels interferes with their religious freedom.

In late January, it was announced that Obama’s health care would cover birth control for women across the country. January 20^th it was announced that there would be changes to the current national health care that would go into effect next year. Birth control and contraception will be completely covered by all employers. If the health care plan was not fully put into effect by employers, they would be fined $2000 per employee annually. Obama and his administration were willing to meet with religious officials to ensure that this would not hinder their rights, but he was only met with opposition at every turn. The Roman Catholic Church insisted that this was infringing on their rights and nothing could be done in order to appease their worries that this would take away the rights of the members of the faith to freely practice religion. The Church claimed that the government could not mandate that employers provide healthcare when it was in direct violation of their faith.

The Roman Catholic Church and many Republicans feel that mandating birth control be covered, not forced down anyone’s throat, is interfering with their religious freedom. This provision is not forcing anyone to take birth control. It is simply another preventative medication that is covered. Contraceptive measures that would be covered are like other medications, like Viagra, that are currently covered. Does everyone use Viagra? Does the Church get up in arms that Viagra, a pill that lets men interfere with God’s decision on whether or not they should be able to impregnate their wives, is currently covered by insurance companies? No, the Church and Republican leaders are solely concerned with what a woman does to her own body.

The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has spoken out multiple times against the President and Democrats that favor the health care bill. Boehner has even gone so far as to call this an attack on religion by the federal government. He has long called many of Obama’s more “radical” policies an attack on religion. When Obama called for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Boehner was quick to say this was the liberal bias that is ruining the country and our military. When this health care provision was proposed, he began to tell media outlets that the government was promoting abortions and abortions would be funded by the US government. This battle cry against state-funded abortions has been picked up by many conservatives. This is also one of the major reasons people oppose the birth control mandate, they have heard it is also going to fund abortions. Many conservatives have not given much thought to the claims made, they just take up the cry and perpetuate the lies spread. Does anyone recall the “death panels” that were said would go into effect? Or the fact that Obama is not even real United States citizen and was born outside of the country?

When the White House issued the statement that birth control would be provided as a preventative measure to women, free of charge, the backlash from the Church was instantaneous and loud. Even though the Obama administration has clarified that religious institutions are exempt from this ruling, the Church is still up in arms. Government officials have clarified several times that houses of worship and church affiliated organizations are exempt from the birth control mandate, but this is not good enough for the Church. The Church and many Republican officials have called for the government to remove all mentions of the birth control mandate. There was even a debate held in Congress, with the ability to call witnesses on both sides of the debate, led by Representative David Issa. The debate that Issa wanted to lead centered not around women’s rights or even birth control, the issue that Republicans had with the health care provisions was the infringement of religious freedom. Issa was outraged that religious freedom was being stepped on in favor of this health care provision.

Even though the debate itself was called over the issue of birth control and the fact that it is going to be available, Issa claimed that this was not a women’s issue. He felt that a group of older men would be the key witnesses on the issue of birth control and would have more knowledge than any woman. Issa claimed that this was not about women’s rights, even though it was only the matter of birth control for women that was an issue, so women had no place in this debate. Many Democrats were enraged that a panel of religious leaders, all male, were the ones that had authority to speak on a woman’s right to birth control. The panels did not have a single legal scholar on them, either. This meant that there was no one to speak on whether this provision really was unconstitutional or not.

Republicans are constantly calling for an end to big government, but wouldn’t it be nice if this group of men would stop pretending they knew anything about what life with a vagina is like? Many women do not take birth control for the “birth control” aspect of it. Many use it to relieve the symptoms of a painful menstruation cycle. Women might choose to use birth control in order to be able to skip periods altogether. Some women might use birth control to help regulate their periods, this way they don’t have to constantly wonder when it will happen. Men that sit in Congress assume that any woman that is on birth control is using it so she can have sex without the repercussions of a baby. Conservatives ignore all of the other reasons a woman might need access to birth control, or why they might want help paying for it. Birth control is not cheap. Even though many Representatives believe otherwise, this birth-control-using-woman knows otherwise. Birth control is very , very expensive. A woman on a hormonal birth control pill can spend up to $18,000 in the thirty years in her lifetime that she is using birth control.

If the US government was forcing women of all religions to take birth control and forcing men to wear condoms, this would be infringing on the religious freedom of these people. The provision that everyone is throwing a fit over is just providing an option to women who need assistance. Women have fought long and hard to be able to decide what to do with their own bodies. Women are competent people who are able to decide what to do with their own bodies. We do not need a bigoted man to tell us what to do. We do not need to have a religious body tell us we are not allowed to enjoy sex because it is only for the use of natural procreation. We especially will not stand for this when “natural procreation” is allowed between a priest and a little boy.

I'm fed up with Susan G. Komen

I'm absolutely disgusted with the entire Susan G. Komen foundation. As I'm sure you all know, last week there was quite the controversy when Komen decided it was no longer going to be sending funds to Planned Parenthood. Then, within a few days, the decision was reversed. Both of these decisions were entirely political and have been the last straw for me.  Before you continue to blindly support Komen, take a good look at what they actually do for women and where they actually stand politically. You may be surprised.

Komen decided to pull it's funding from Planned Parenthood on the basis that they have a new rule that states that Komen is not allowed to give out funds to a company that is under investigation by the government. Oddly enough, this rule was created shortly after Karen Handel was hired by Komen. Handel is a very outspoken anti-abortion advocate and has been reported on several occasions as saying that she is "pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." Is it really that surprising that shortly after she was hired this new rule has come out about who may or may not receive Komen grant money and the only ones affected by this decision is Planned Parenthood? 

It is quite obvious that Komen has folded to the religious right in this country and is putting politics before the health of women. Komen has folded to the conservative propaganda that continually spews the lie that Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory and that all Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions. Apparently the fact the Planned Parenthood provides support and often the mammograms (or pays for the mammograms) of women that cannot afford them. The religious agenda ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood has saved countless lives with their services. All they focus on is the fact that Planned Parenthood offers abortions, a service which is only a tiny percentage of the services actually performed. 

Big deal, Komen decided to see reason and reverse the decision. Did they reverse the decision because they care about women? No, they did it because they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars with this widely publicized decision. They aren't reversing the decision because there has been some change in the mindset of those at the top of Komen. All they see are the dollar signs, dollar signs they lost with this poor decision. 

If this was the only problem with the entire Susan G. Komen foundation, I may be willing to forgive the organization and continue to support them. But this is the final act of a long list of grievances that Komen has committed. Komen has continued to take thousands of dollars from companies like Bank of America, a company that is under government investigation I might add. Komen has a history of going after small charities for using phrases like "for the cure" and using thousands of donation dollars to pursue these lawsuits. Komen pays the top executives a disgustingly high salary, all while trying to siphon more money from people that want to help a worthy cause. Komen uses sexist marketing hooks in order to draw attention to their campaign. Komen is known to partner with extremely unhealthy companies such as KFC to raise money. 

The Susan G. Komen foundation is nothing but a money making campaign that only looks out for itself now. It has lost sight of the fact that it is supposed to be helping women. I know that I will never send another penny towards this farce of an organization. I was sending them about $50 a month, a total of $600 a year and that dropped in the past year as more and more of their true nature has come to light. Now, all of the money I was sending will be split between Planned Parenthood as well as a few other select organizations that I am still trying to decide between. 

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA

Since you are all using the internet, I'm assuming you've at least heard mention of the two US bills that were threatening to go through congress, SOPA and PIPA, as well as the global bill threatening to pass now, ACTA.  Since there are numerous websites designed to help people understand what these are, I'm not going to add to that list. (To read more on ACTA, you can go here or here)

I download files. I share files. I see nothing wrong with this at all. It seems that the main concern for these proposed bills are the fact that there is a large amount of theft of intellectual property. You hear from top CEO's and executives about how when people download music, movies, and television shows, they are stealing from the artists and these companies. These bills are going to protect these innocent and helpless companies from such terrible, terrible theft.

But, are the people that download really going to start adding to the massive profits these companies are already seeing? Are these people that have been getting unlimited music, movies, and television shows suddenly going to start spending thousands of dollars on these products? The simple answer is no. If you have been getting something for free for years, you're not going to start spending money on it now. I can see that there will be new ways to get around this law before the ink is even dry on the last signature. Would you like to know why? Because people like free things and people are going to want to continue to get free things.

Another problem I have with the claims that these companies make about the massive losses they incur from illegal downloads is the fact that these downloads actually help. It may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first glance, but the more you look at this statement, the more merit it has. I can speak from my own personal experience when it comes to this fact. I have downloaded countless songs, albums, movies, and even a television show or two. I have watched movies and shows streaming. And yet, when I do this, I am actually putting myself in a position to give these companies more money. If I hear about a new band, I don't want to spend the first $10 on an album I might find absolutely terrible. So what do I do? I download it. I then listen to this new artist and decide I really like this band. I then make decide that if this band is going to have any chance of making it in the music industry, I need to support them. I spend money on albums, concerts, clothing. I also promote this band. I may share some of the albums with friends, making them a fan as well! Looking through my spending records from last year alone, I can see that I've spent over $3,500 on albums, concerts, and attire for these bands. If I hadn't had the chance to listen to them for free, that would be $3,500 that the music industry would have never seen.

Finally, are these television and movie studios really losing money when people download their products and watch them? Not necessarily. When I download or stream a show, I'm most likely doing this because it is not available yet in the US. That might seem a bit strange, but I'll clear this up for you... Most of the shows I enjoy are British. The BBC will release them in the UK first, then roughly a season later, it will be allowed to air in the US. For instance, I love the new BBC show "Sherlock." Sherlock only has three episodes per series. This means for the next three episodes, you'll have to wait a year. Now, in the UK, "Sherlock" was released almost a month ago. It will not be aired in the US for several more months. So I decided that I would download it and watch it. Does this mean I wont watch it when it finally does air here? No, I'll watch it. I love the show and the story line. But I do not like having to wait many months for the new series when it is readily available elsewhere. The same goes for other shows I love, "Doctor Who", "Merlin", and "Skins". All of these shows are released early in the UK and those fans in the US must wait. Most fans will still watch them when they air here, but that does not mean we like being left out and forced to wait when they have them all ready to air!


These bills are going to censor the internet. They are going to greatly diminish the knowledge we all have and have grown accustomed to. Not only are many sites we use everyday going to be forced to shut down, but they are creating these bills for completely bogus reasons. And, you should be afraid of what happens next. If letting someone use something for free, even when you own it legally, is going to be illegal, beware of what could happen next. Don't be surprised if used CD-, movie-, and book-stores are all forced to shut down. Don't be surprised to see libraries all being forced to shut their doors.

Casey Anthony Trial

The verdict was just announced. Okay, I know I haven't been following the Casey Anthony as closely as a lot of people, but even I knew she was guilty! How does someone not see that she is guilty on all counts?! Not guilty of murder, child abuse and manslaughter... How?! The only thing she is found guilty of is lying to the police, with the possibility of no more than four years in prison. So, that means we all know she wont serve time. How do those jurors think that that was an innocent death?!

I'm just completely baffled by this.