The Dark Side of the Internet!

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself.”–Harvey S. Firestone

It seems that in today's fast advancing world we want everything performed and completed fast. The quick access we have to the Internet, a worldwide web, has been but a "mixed blessing." It has presented an elusive amount of information to society at the tip of their hands. But not only does it bombard helpful information but it can also be extremely harmful and even deadly form of "advertising" violent behavior, better known as cyberbullying. Such fast and accessible growing web has paved way to an easy quick spreading method of attacking.

"Click, type, click, and post" the harm is done. But many agressors are oblivious to the fact that everything, absolutely everything has an audience, and at one point is seen and read and later commented about. Sure there is such a thing as posting anonymously, but it is still hurtful even more I would say than being confronted directly, because not only do you not know your attacker's face, but you do not know their motives, their intentions, nor when to anticipate their attacks.

Take the state of Missouri for example, it has made cyberbulling a felony under a new state law
"After the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier, the victim of an Internet hoax, Missouri is taking cyberbullying very seriously."

Now lets hope many other states criminalize cyberbullying, because in many cases it leads to low self-esteem, emotional abuse, and even suicide.

Prevent Hate Crimes Protect All Our Citizens!!

"Preaching the Gospel Would be Against the Law! (And Other Hate Crimes Myths)"-Politics Daily

After a long sturdy tough wait in line the Gay Rights issue has been recently placed on Congress' table. There is a Senate vote expected to expand federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation as well, yet to such sweet justice as one would be expected to perceive it, many religious conservatives have released a screaching halt. In fact they are "ramping up the rhetoric" against the bill, which already passed the House last week.

This is entirely a Democratic movement. Behind the legislation which is also coined as the Human Rights Campaign are all Democrats including our fellow President Barack Obama "the leading gay rights lobby" so they called him. He has guaranteed his support as he renewed his pledged to sign the bill. Lets just hope he is not another Clinton.>.< (Don't understand?! Watch video below, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act catching the American public off-guard, it was quite a surprise because he had previously attended an HRC "=" event speaking on behalf the country's fight against discrimination)

The Bill is named after Matthew Sheppard, a 21 year old man beaten to death by two men simply because he was GAY in small town Laramie Wyoming in October 2008, as depicted in The Laramie Project, which many of us had the opportunity to read. And James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by a gang of white men in Texas, only a few months before Sheppard's 1998 killing. The bill was first introduced back in 2001, and since then many Republicans have been able to dodge it and turn it down, but now Democratic leaders have attached the bill to a defense appropriations measure.

The bill would categorize crimes specifically targeted at homosexuals and transgender people as Hate crimes, also covering people with disabilities. HOWEVER the tantrum is not so much over that as much as it is over the LGBT inclusion, which has given birth to some absurd myths such as those summarized below:

"Pastors would be hounded out of their pulpits or even rounded up because a hate crimes law would "criminalize" speech and particularly sermons that quote scripture saying homosexuality is a sin. The law would also "create" new rights for homosexuals and grant them "special protections" not accorded other Americans. And what the heck is a "hate crime," anyway? All crimes are hate crimes!"

LGBTQ Civil Rights Movement?!

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things... every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." — Matt Santos

California Prop 8= "Secure Traditional Marriage"

"U.S. judge refuses Prop. 8 backers' request to dismiss gay-marriage case"-Mercury News

Recently Prop 8 "backers" requests to dismiss the gay-marriage case that will challenge the constitutionality of the law were rejected in a San Francisco courtroom by federal Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

In fact "One by one, the judge shot down the legal reasons Proposition 8 lawyers presented to resolve the case now and allow the same-sex marriage ban to remain in force...[seeming] particularly unpersuaded by Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper's chief argument for a state law confining marriage to heterosexual couples — that the state has an interest in protecting "traditional" marriage because of its importance to procreation in society."

Judged Walker rather challenged Copper's argument by citing statistics that a large percent of children are born out to single mothers and further saying that "Procreation doesn't require marriage."

To such legal challenge on Prop.8 Judge Walker concluded that California's voter-approved measure that bans gay marriage must and will be resolved in a "full-blown" trial scheduled for January 2010. It is until then that same-sex marriage advocates will argue that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denies same sex couples the right to marry.

Nonetheless, California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 previously, concluding that it could not "trump" the voters who approved the measure back in November 2008. But I say what about the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before Proposition 8 went into effect in California, can they "trump" over them?! Furthermore, is it fair to continue denying gay couples the right to wed while thousands of same-sex marriages remain legal in the state.

If you were to ask me about it? It was at first quite surprising that a great population of California would ratify,uphold, and enforce a law that discriminates. it is specifically targeted at the LGBT community by stripping away the right to marry with whom they chose to spend their life with. Counter attacks claim to be protecting "traditional" marriages, but what is indeed a "traditional" marriage? One between a man and a woman some might argue. But what about evidence that reflects that throughout human history 'traditional' marriage has been infested with polygony, arrange, forced, and child marriages amongst others that predicate on the subjugation and objectification of women? (Pollit presents a very solid argument supported by historical evidence) I propose we alter the definition of "traditional" marriage into one of a bond of love, sexual orientation should NOT matter. So promote EQUALITY for all and...

Love Me, I'm a Liberal!☮♥✌☀♁

"We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said "liberal" means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, 'Leave it to Beaver' trip back to the fifties," we cowered in the corner and said: 'Please, don't hurt me. No more.' "-West Wing

Based on my answers on the questionnaire my typology under the political spectrum falls into the "Liberal" category. Not much of a surprise, I can not say I was flabbergasted at the results that confirmed what I already suspected, my philosophy closely resembles liberal ideologies. I tend to be very open-minded when it comes down to social liberties and life in general, a view I adopted after being influenced greatly from my environment. Tolerance, respect, acceptance, and appreciation for who we are is what I believe in. Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters, the youngest yet most highly educated group of all.

I must admit I am not very religious at all, I believe religion mentally enslaves one, for it restricts an individual from cultivating his/her own notions and dictates one's judgement.

I support Gay Marriage, I believe marriage is no privilege its a fundamental liberty and inalienable right of all to form a bond with the one you love and wish to spend the rest of your life with. I am not as passionate about Pro-choice though, for I will not defend the idea that one can dispose of a life as they wish or find best suitable to, it is not morally right. Just as I do not believe in the death penalty I will not approve of abortion (w/ exceptions in certain cases), but in most cases one being should not hold in their hands the life of another. I do indeed favor environmental protection, it seems illogical&selfish of humans to exploit nature and allow earth to deteriorate. I am pro-immigrant as well, a young mexican-american from immigrant parents who dared to dream of a better future, if you'd ask me immigrants strenghten American society. I strongly prefer good diplomacy over relying on military force in order to secure peaceful international relationships. Military force only instigates hatred and resentment.

Fiscally I tend to be much more conservative, currently I dislike the welfare system and government aid, predominantly because it destroys self-reliance and ambition. Now don't misundersand me, I am all for helping the poor, I do not wish to abolish the welfare system. I just wished the government would regulate it more and secure that only those truly in need recieved financial help.

Overall I will admit that for the most part most of my ideas are liberal, I seek greater freedom in religious and political matters, free from prejudice and narrow thinking. Fact is I'm a "Contemporary Hippie"!