Bush/Cheney 1984

For the bumper sticker, click here.

I know I have been away for a little while, but the spirit compels me to post two thoughts.

First of all, I know that people may have forgot during the consumer Christmas haze, but it appears we officially live in a dictatorship. It’s a little more pleasant than some because at least I can post on this blog, but I can no longer be sure at what cost. I can no longer have carefree telephone conversations or email exchanges without wondering who is listening, without worrying that I or the people I love are being monitored by Big Brother.

Props to Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts for dramatically stating the Bush administration’s unlawful violation of civil liberties. Congress should have never granted the Bush administration any special powers after 9/11, but even if they did, it does not cover such ridiculous dictatorial behavior as monitoring a range of groups and individuals with no clear terrorist aims, let alone clear ties to al-Qaeda. Thankfully Massachusetts (double props to the people of Massachusetts on this one) kept Kennedy around to remind us that “this is Big Brother run amok.” (click here for the link to the Los Angeles Times article with Kennedy’s quotation, with regard to his opposition to the renewal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act). By the way, isn't this why the constitution has this little thing called the impeachment process?

Read here for more information on the impeachment process in the U.S. Constitution; to see specifically which constitutional rights they have been violating check out the Bill of Rights, especially IV, V, and VI:

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

That is why my opening picture is of the Benjamin Franklin quotation. I think it’s time this nation reflects not just on how well, if at all, our “democratic system” actually functions, but also, we must reflect upon what we mean by this “freedom” we love so dearly? Then we should start listening to the now cliché-Gandhi sentiment: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” This applies not just to individual behavior but to our own government; if we want to see a “free” world practicing “democracy,” maybe we should aim for making the U.S.A. safer for freedom and democracy too.

Dating Rules 2005

On a lighter note, props to Marc and Lauren for our discussion the other night. We have finally figured out exactly how to approach the issue of appropriate payment on dates. In normal first-date situations, s/he who asked is responsible for paying for the meal/festivities/etc. In later dates, the burgeoning couple is welcome to work out a system best suited to their individual tastes, although as a student with little money I am an advocate of the “pay-for-your-own” plan. Though unique situations can present themselves.

The “whoever asks” rule can get tricky when considering internet dating. In this situation, I really think it’s best that each pay for his/her own part of the date until a real dating situation has been established. I know a lot of girls have enjoyed internet dating because of the supply of free-food; however, I think that any woman who identifies herself as a feminist should be wary of such willingness to be so commodified on dates by the supposed purchasing power of men. I myself have often let men pay for a date, not wanting to seem rude and ungracious, and thus a new system for a new century should help us all figure this out better. I am not saying that all men pay for dinner because they have a desire to own something of the woman on that date; I think we just take for granted the capitalist relationship amongst certain constructions of masculinity and feminity on dates and it’s time for that to change. Especially if the woman in question has a steady income and the man on the internet date is a student with no steady income.

Finally, the “whoever asks” rule encounters the blind date situation. In this case, we believe that the “whoever asks” rule should be conservatively interpreted. The matchmaker should pay for the date of the poor set-up couple. Such a practice would have the added bonus of hindering careless matchmakers and their match-happy practitioning.

Happy New Year to all.