DeMint: The Anti-Gay Republican

I don't know much about this Republican Senator Jim DeMint from North Carolina, but I do know that he would have a problem with about half of my friends.

(Click on photograph to be taken to Huffington Post story on DeMint)

This guy thinks that homosexuality is immoral and that having an openly gay president would be the worst thing that could ever happen to America. He believes that homosexuality is "immoral" and that "marriage is a religious institution" and "Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that's proven to be destructive to our society."

A behavior? Religious Institution? Destructive? Could he be any more insulting? Most likely, but he seems to stand by his words with pride and no remorse for the human beings he just criticized. I have a few issues with his statements.

One: Homosexuality is not a behavior; it's a sexual orientation. It's not the way a person acts, it's the way a person feels about the opposite sex and in my book there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is the 21st century if you haven't noticed, DeMint. According to the U.S. census bureau, 1.5% of Americans have come out as homosexual and those are just the ones that have come out. In all reality, we all are a little gay. Even you.

Two: Your whole statement about "marriage being a religious institution" is bogus. Yes, a good deal of Americans still hold their weddings in a church and have a priest and so on and so forth, but another good deal of Americans don't believe in religion and would die before they got a priest to join two atheist hands in marriage. And, according to the U.S. census bureau,  in 2001, about 12% of Americans identified themselves as either atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, or non-religious. And the homosexuals that do believe in God have already told themselves that he loves them no matter what. Therefore, marriage is far from being a religious institution. That's just what you think.

Three: What part of homosexuality is destructive? If you are talking about like raves and techno and drugs, everyone who does that is not gay. If you're young and stupid enough, you'll do it. If you are talking about two homosexuals adopting or having a child together, that's not a course of destruction either. As long as the parents can give the child the love and support they need to get through the trials and tribulations of life, by the time they get to the age where they can have their own opinions and see homosexuality as a way of life for some people, they will be just fine. And, if you mean destructive as in like...bombing people or causing mayhem or tearing people down for their sexual orientation, I think you may be more at fault for being destructive, Sir.

I'm sure there are more Republicans out there that believe in the same things you do, and that's why we don't have a Republican president. That's why gay marriage is allowed in five of the 50 states of the United States. That's why people like you are frowned upon for being closed-minded. And that's why people like you will never ever make it to the top. 

Modern Warfare 2 [[VS]] Reality

The only thing I know about Predator Drones is that it's really great when my fiance gets them from killing enough people in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 because he gets to kill even more people! That sounds great for a video game, but in real life it just sounds like murder to me.

Predator Drone Aircraft

I know that we have issues overseas; okay, maybe more than just some 'issues'. In this article, The Drone Dilemma, featured on Newsweek, the Obama Administration talk about possibly expanding their use of Predator Drones over more densely populated areas of Pakistan. Previous use of the missiles have been successful and some officials think it would be a great idea to start wiping out more people with them. President Obama is a little hesistant though.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Predator Drone Set Up

In case you don't know exactly what a Predator Drone is, it's a CIA search and destroy program that launches missiles from a remotely piloted drone aircraft. And, if the damage that it does in the video game is similar to the damage it can do in reality, a lot if people can die even if they are just in the proximity of where it lands. Obama is worried about killing more civilians for unnecessary reasons, which I think is comendable. I know certain people need to be 'taken care of', but not everyone in Pakistan is a terrorist.

The Predator Drones have succeeded in killing some top people in leadership positions for the Taliban and getting rid of some experts who know about 'weapons of mass destruction' (which should just be called bombs, or nukes, or whatever). I'm sure that makes Americans feel a little bit safer. But you have to think of all those poor women and children who have lost members of their family who may be in a direct line of fire without even knowing about it. We are talking about exterminating human beings like they were cockroaches. It's like taking that aerosol can of Raid and spraying it on a helpless ant colony. Ants can't do anything but walk around and try to feed themselves, while doing some occasional breeding. The innocent people of Pakistan who are going to get hit with that Predator Drone are like those ants: helpless, self-sufficient, and occasional breeders. Their just like us in a way, except we haven't foreseen any missiles coming our way without warning. We may be giving the Taliban some ideas though!

Predator Drone Missile

I'm not saying that using the Predator Drones is a bad idea, but it is a definite risk of just making matters worse. If more people are killed, more people who were attached to someone not involved in this mess, more people are going to get angry. If not angry, more people are going to get violent. But I'm not one for politics or weaponry or making decisions on who lives or dies. Apparently, that's the governments job. I'm just a writer.

Federal Shield Law Under Attack

I am a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and I have been getting a numerous amount of emails in my inbox about the Shield Law -- a legislation and 'privelege' of sorts for journalists that protects us from being forced to reveal an anonymous source's information that we have collected during our newsgathering. For quite some time now, the Federal Shield Law has been under attack by state senators and other government officials, trying to either get rid of the legislation entirely or (recently) make it apply only to 'salaried employess or independent contractors of news organizations". Freelance writers, students (like myself), and online journalists would not be protected.

As I did some more research about the origins and benefits of the Shield Law, the SPJ website made some very interesting points. I know that some parts of the government think that it is unfair for journalists to have so many confidential sources, but we do have a purpose. As the SPJ website states, it was anonymous sources that helped to reveal the culprits of the Watergate scandal. It was multiple anonymous sources that helped clear up debates about what is going on over in Iraq. In some cases, it is necessary to keep our sources confidential. If not for their own lives and family's sake, for our own.

I have said it many times and I will say it again; being a journalist is dangerous. Investigative reporting can be rewarding at times, but it can also put us in some serious sticky situations. Without the Shield Law, journalists would be forced to reveal their sources in court if asked to do so; no matter the consequences. It makes me wonder how long the government has actually thought about the consequences -- what taking away this legislation would be like for the journalists who are telling their families, friends, readers, etc. about the news that they really need to know.

For example, let's say you see a murder occur somewhere. Let's say...someone attempts and succeeds at assassinating a senator or congressman and you witness the entire thing. Naturally (if not too much in shock) you take a photo, video, have some sort of documented proof. You know that you can't keep it inside; you have to tell someone. So you tell me. You tell me the entire story, show me or give me your proof and you ask to remain anonymous for the sake of your own life and your family's life and your friends' lives, keeping them out of danger. I tell you that I promise to keep your name, whereabouts, etc. confidential. I write the story. Obviously, I would get called into court to state again (even though I already wrote a story on it) what you told me about the assassination. But, without the Shield Law, I would be forced to tell the court who you are or risk the dire consequences...most likely jail or prison time for not cooperating. And, because i told you I would keep you safe, I would go to jail for you. I wouldn't even think twice about it. But, if we can protect our legislation...our 'privelege' to keep our sources safe, all of that could possibly be avoided.

SPJ is trying to keep every journalist aware of ever step that is being taken for and against the Shield Law, but they can only do so much on their own. I support the Shield Law, and if you are a journalist I am sure you do as well, but we can't do this alone. A great deal of awareness needs to be brought to the table to secure our anonymous sources and our journalists. 49 states (excluding Wyoming) have some sort of Shield Law to protect the anonymous source and the journalist. Taking away this legislation could mean someone's life. I know that sounds...overdramatic...but in essence...at the end of the day...it's not. You can give two shits about protecting journalists, but you should care about protecting our sources. Some cases would still be mysteries without them.

The Truth vs The Ethics

Can ethics come into play when you are showing something real and true? Should they come into play? Should people's emotions and fears be taken into account? How does a journalist decide when and when not to break the law?

Gates Orders Review of Ban on Photographing Flag-Draped Coffins

During George H.W. Bush's presidential term, a ban was put on photographing the loading and unloading of deceased American soldier coffins that have been draped with our flag. The ban still stands today, but President Obama is considering getting rid of the ban.

The real question here is...should or should there not be a ban under these circumstances.

My take on the entire situation is that the ban is pointless. There is a reason why we have photographers in the right places at the right time. I understand that some people think it is indecent and an invasion of privacy. But when you really think about it, what is privacy anyway?

Privacy: the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs. (dictionary.com)

With this definition, it makes me realize that there is no such thing as privacy. The government has our phone lines tapped, government and law enforcement video camera's are everywhere, anybody can go to a government associated building and look at other people's personal documents, etc. Everyone's life is on blast 24/7, so why should photographers and reporters not take a chance when it is given to them? Do you believe that the corpses in those coffins are going to be angry that the flash is too bright? Or are you just concerned that the families won't want their deceased loved one's coffins photographed for the world to know what is going on in a place we know very little about.

A woman by the name of Tami Silicio took the picture below of flag-draped coffins being loaded into a cargo plane at the Kuwait International Airport.

Click photograph to enlarge

The photo was picked up by the Seattle Times and was run on the front page of the April 18, 2004 issue with Silicio's permission. The Times had warned Silicio of the consequences of possibly losing her job as a Kuwait base cargo worker, but Silicio gave them her permission anyway. As a result, Silicio lost her job a few days later on April 21, 2004.

Should Silicio have lost her job? Of course not! She wasn't doing it out of spite or anger or any other random emotion. She took the picture because of what it represented and I fear for the people who don't understand her purpose.

Should she have let the Times run the picutre? Of course! People should know about the consequences of having to live a life surrounded by death and turmoil. People should see things like what this picture encompasses and realize that something needs to be done. And things need to be done in a lot of areas.

1) The ban should be lifted and people should be shown what they need to see.
2) The government needs to realize that they can't control journalism. We are not yet government funded.
3) People need to realize that this is righteous information, not random pictures taken to hurt peoples emotions.

It's hard to say where the line can be drawn when it comes to taking pictures as journalists. The picture of the flag-draped coffins is not the same as a picture of a child covered in blood, missing limbs. I still think the child would be a newsworthy picture, but the ethics issue would drench a picture like that.

*As I took an hour or so break from this blog, I have been informed that there has been a relaxation instituted upon the ban of photographing fallen soldiers' coffins. Check cnn.com and the Pentagon website for more information.

DOD reconsiders coffin photo ban