#111: Rapist Brock Turner & Judge Prove That Rape Culture, Sexism, Racism, and Classicism Still Exist in America

I am going to make several points in this blog entry. They'll have to do with sexism, rape culture, classicism, and racism. I'm going to use one example of something that has happened recently, and some things we need to do to get ahold of our sexist, classicist, racist ways, because it's holding innocent people back and causing other innocent people to get hurt. I'm going to start with the most obvious problem that arises in my example: sexism/rape culture.

I have been told by a number of men that rape culture doesn't exist in the United States, because rape is illegal here. I want to point out some clear evidence against this. Google defines rape culture as "the ways in which society blame[s] victims of sexual assault and normalize[s] male sexual violence." First off, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it can't be commonplace and accepted in society. Marijuana is illegal in Peru, but I've lived there, and everyone smokes pot. If the police find you smoking pot, they'll likely let you off scott-free if you share some of your pot with them. On the opposite side, gay marriage is legal, yet hate crimes still plague the LGBTQ+ community. Anyone who says that, just because something has been dealt with by law, the opposite of the law can't be normalized by society, doesn't understand social norms and is looking at these issues through a peephole, rather than through the whole window. Rape culture is a lot more than just making rape illegal; it's about lax laws surrounding it, and the even more lax sentences convicted rapists get. The government may consider rape to be illegal and wrong, but the criminal justice system doesn't take it seriously, rape victims are too often blamed for crimes committed AGAINST them, and parents are more likely to teach their daughters to not get drunk and go to parties in a mini-skirt than to teach their sons about consent and how to respect women. (This can even go for men too, as men can sometimes be victims of rape.)

Exhibit A: Last year, a Stanford University student named Brock Turner raped an unconscious woman he had never even met, behind a dumpster after attending a college party. Two other Stanford students passed by the dumpster, and noticing that Turner was sexually assaulting this unconscious woman, they tackled Turner to the ground and held him until police arrived. This is a pretty cut and dry case, if you ask me. He was caught in the act - red-handed. It was so blatantly obvious that he committed this crime that a jury of his peers unanimously voted that he was guilty. The maximum sentence for his crime was 14 years in prison, but because Brock Turner is from a rich, powerful, white family, and he happens to be a star swimmer, hoping to swim for the U.S. in the Olympics someday, the judge deemed him too fragile to send to prison. Even though Turner was convicted of 3 counts of sexual assault, all he received was 6 months in jail and probation, and with good behavior, he could be out of jail in 3 months.

And what's worse is Brock Turner still doesn't admit to the crime he was caught committing. Because the victim was unconscious, she doesn't know what happened and can't testify, so Turner wrote the script, changing his story to something ludicrous. But even without the victim's testimony, the two heroes who saved the victim saw what happened; they were conscious and fully aware, so their testimonies should speak for the victim, shouldn't they? Even so, Turner still maintains his innocence, not even humble enough to admit any fault. He insists the victim gave consent, and that he wants to speak out about "alcohol consumption" and "sexual promiscuity" to other schools, so people will be more aware of what these things can lead to. No, he doesn't want to encourage people not to RAPE other people; instead, he wants to teach people not to drink alcohol or have consensual sex, two things which are perfectly legal. One would think the consequences would be even steeper for a rapist who won't even admit he did anything wrong, and feels no guilt whatsoever for what he did.

Now, I think most people agree that Judge Aaron Persky might as well have spit in the face of every young woman out there who has ever been sexually assaulted, will be sexually assaulted, fears being sexually assaulted, or has a loved one who has been or will be sexually assaulted. That's every woman in the world. He might as well have told women everywhere that our safety is less important than Brock Turner's swimming career. This is why most women never report their rapes. Why go through all of the trouble of spending over a year going to hearings and trials, re-hashing your trauma countless times in front of complete strangers, when next to nothing will be done about it? What is this teaching women? That we have no one to turn to, and we might as well not bother. Judge Persky said he believed prison would have a negative effect on Turner, and therefore, he gave the rapist the most lenient sentence he could. Think about that for a minute. Nevermind how Turner caused the victim to suffer by raping her; all the judge cares about his how prison would affect a rapist. Please try to let that sink in. Many people are outraged about this and have been posting vlogs about the issue. For instance, Phil Defrance shared a few words on the subject here: http://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154252026224407&id=79728204406 (I couldn't find this video anywhere but on Facebook, so I hope everyone is able to see this, regardless of whether or not you have a Facebook.) Another Youtuber has a few things to say too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7KbdcxBDCM. (This video blacks out at one point, but he's not finished; give it a few seconds, and it will come back on.)

And who will be Turner's next victim? He practically got away with it this time, so what's to say he wouldn't get away with it again? And who will look at what Turner did and think, "Hmm, that guy did what he wanted and got away with it, so I bet I could too"? And Turner's lawyers, while they were doing their job, did nothing but ask the victim irrelevant questions about what she was wearing that night, how intoxicated she was, what she had eaten that day, why she was at the party, what she had done at the party, etc. They were not only trying to poke holes in her story which they could use against her, but they were essentially blaming her for her own rape. They tried to paint her as a slutty young woman who is maliciously trying to ruin a promising young man's life. Victim-blaming is a serious problem here in the United States. Even if it's illegal to rape people, everyone always wants to know what provoked the man to rape the woman, as if that has anything to do with what caused a man to disrespect a woman and force himself on her - as if men are raging, wild animals that completely lack self-control. That just goes to show that women are still considered to be second-class citizens to some people. Here is just one article on the Brock Turner case, but I would recommend looking up more information on the case, as there is ton out there: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/.

What's worse is I can understand why Brock Turner turned into the rapist he did. I can understand, because his father gave a testimony begging the judge for leniency, and reducing Turner's violent sexual assault to "20 minutes of action". If his father doesn't even consider rape to be anything different from consensual sex, then why would Turner? I mean, Turner's dad even had the audacity to testify that his son won't even eat steak anymore. His dad was upset that Turner has become depressed and lost opportunities over this scandal. I'm thinking "rightly so!" I sure do hope he never enjoys a steak again, but that was seriously the reason Turner's dad felt his son should not have to face prison time. Nevermind how the victim feels. Nevermind what state she is in, or how this affects her. Turner was the one who made the decision to rape an innocent woman, so he made his bed and can sleep in it, but the victim surely didn't choose the life she now leads. So the problem isn't just with the criminal justice system; it's also a problem that needs to be addressed in every dwelling of every family in this country, as well as in every school. We need to teach children about consent from a young age, and we need to teach children to respect other people. Parents and schools both need to work together and teach that to their kids. For some people, consent and respect come naturally, and it doesn't need to be taught, but clearly Brock Turner's dad has no respect for women, and he passed it onto his son, in this situation.

And then there's the media. The very first article that came out about rape accusations against Brock Turner detailed his swim times. Why is that information at all relevant? It was meant to humanize him and reduce his crime. "Oh, ok! He raped a girl, but boy, he is a fast swimmer! That makes it ok." It was meant to make Turner seem less of a monster and more of a hero. The picture of Turner that everyone saw in the news was not a mugshot for a very long time; it was a professional photograph of Turner in a suit - to make him look like a professional, well-rounded, good person. The media is sexist too.

My overall point (in the sexism portion of this blog entry) is that rape culture does exist. It's all around us. A rapist, who very obviously committed this crime, received a slap on the wrist for his crime. The crime of rape may be illegal, but that doesn't mean the battle has been won. Women are still blamed for crimes committed against them, and sentences for rapists are lax, as long as the rapist has something to offer the country or the judge.

And I think the classicism displayed here is clear. If Turner didn't have such a promising career ahead of him or wasn't such a great swimmer, and if his family wasn't so rich and powerful, it's possible he would've received a much worse sentence. As I saw someone say online about this case, "Justice is sold to the highest bidder." It's all about capitalism in this country, and it's sad when someone who is supposed to stick up for the victim is willing to sell the safety and security of every woman in the country, in exchange for money. I believe it is safe to assume Judge Persky capitalized in the victim's pain and suffering. Had someone in a poor neighborhood been accused of the same crime, I have half a mind to think the sentencing would've been much more harsh.

And I don't even have to guess what the sentencing would've been if Brock Turner had been black. Have you ever heard of Corey Batey? He is in the exact same situation as Turner, except the outcome is much different. Batey was a prominent football player at Vanderbilt University when video footage that made it clear he had raped an unconscious woman was released. He was even the exact same age as Turner when he committed the crime. It's uncanny how similar the cases are. The only difference is Turner is white, and Batey is black. Oh, and the other difference is that Turner received a slap on the wrist after his conviction, while Batey is now serving a mandatory 15-25 years in prison. Now, I'm not defending Batey. I think he is a despicable human being and deserved what he got. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. But I'm outraged that someone who did the exact same crime as Batey doesn't have to do the time. Learn more about the similarities between the two rapists, their crimes, and the outcomes of their trials here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945.

If you want to learn more about the victim, what she went through, and how this is affecting her, read the letter she wrote to her attacker here: https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.sylKdQZRm#.ympPW6rl9. I still don't know the victim's name, as I don't believe that information has been released. If you, like many others, don't agree with the verdict and the blatant disrespect Judge Aaron Persky showed toward women everywhere, he is up for re-election soon. You can either make sure to vote against his re-election, or you can sign the petition to have him removed from his position at: https://weareultraviolet.org/?utm_source=search&utm_medium=grant&utm_campaign=RevMsg&gclid=Cj0KEQjws_m6BRCv37WbtNmJs-IBEiQAWKKt0OtwdYFLOTY_wT2e5f-WjDRTfkQ2RgIAm1Yf8RKFqS0aAsja8P8HAQ.

I want to close out this blog entry by thanking the two heroes who saw a rape in progress, cared enough to check out the situation, and were brave enough to stop it. We have no idea what would've happened to the victim if these two young men hadn't stepped in. They could very well be the reason she is alive today. We should focus on these two heroes and the victim, and not as much on the attacker. The victim's two rescuers are Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson. I would like to thank the two of them, as well as all who stand up for rape victims, from the bottom of my heart. They are the type of people we need in the world. When one man failed the victim that night, two men restored her faith in men and in humanity. They truly are heroes.

 This is rapist Brock Turner's mugshot, which was finally released. No one should be seeing his nice photograph of him in a suit. THIS is who Brock Turner is and what people should see.

 This is Judge Aaron Persky, who perpetuates rape culture and enables rapists. It's time for him to give up his position on the bench, as he clearly can not be trusted with that kind of power.

These are the only heroes in this story: Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson, who caught the rapist in action, tackled him to the ground, and held him until authorities arrived. Praise these two brave heroes.

#110: White Rabbits vs. Black Hares - Helping Hand or Leveling the Playing Field?

"Liberals are the most racist of them all, because they don't believe minorities can do it on their own." My mouth dropped the first time I heard this. And as it turns out, there are actually a lot of people who believe this. This made it completely obvious to me that conservatives and liberals have a misunderstanding. Not only do I think many conservatives misunderstand institutional racism, particularly if they are not minorities themselves, but I also think they misunderstand what liberals are trying to do to battle systemic racism. So I came up with a metaphor to make everyone understand where liberals are coming from and what we are trying to accomplish, which by no means, entails racism.

Picture this: Some big entity in power is setting up a race. The first team consists of only white rabbits, and the other team consists only of black hares. I chose these 2 animals, because they are inherently equal, as far as their natural abilities. They have their differences, but they are both highly capable of performing and winning races. When we look at the track that the white rabbits have to go through, they have some obstacles - some big, some small. But it's perfectly reasonable to think that some of them, maybe even all of them, can finish the race; they just have to want it and work hard. Then we take a look at the track that the black hares have to go through. This one is a little different. There are more obstacles, bigger obstacles. They're all over the place - so much so that it's not likely that all of the black hares will finish the race - not because they are weaker or less motivated than the white rabbits, but because the obstacles are astronomically challenging. It is likely that some black hares will get through the obstacles if they work extra hard, but even if they do, it's still likely that they will not cross the finish line before the white rabbits do. Who knows? Maybe even one extremely strong, fast, and intelligent black hare will come out on top and beat the whole race, making everyone say "Well, if that black hare could do it, why couldn't the rest of them?" - even if most of the rest of the black hares are far behind everyone else.

The race begins. We see a few black hares doing a great job, working extra hard to get through the obstacles. We also see the white rabbits working hard to get through their obstacles, but remember they have fewer obstacles, and their obstacles are smaller, even if there are obstacles that they have to work hard to get through. The results are in. Quite a few of the white rabbits made it through to the finish line, and quite a few of them did so rather quickly. But only a couple of black hares made it to the finish line, and it took them a longer amount of time to do it. The white rabbits at the end of the race are very tired. They worked hard, and they did a great job - showing some real motivation and skill there. However, the couple of black hares that finished the race are exhausted. They worked extra hard to make it through those extra obstacles, and they truly have a lot to show for it. Only a few white rabbits didn't finish the race, while most of the black hares didn't finish. Most of them showed some real strength and motivation - just not enough to finish the race. Only a few animals on each team lacked drive and slacked off. Do you think this race was fair? Do you think the results are skewed or reliable?

Look, very many white people, and even the occasional minority, (There are always outliers to every rule.) will deny the existence of institutional racism. Sometimes your view of the world depends on how you were raised, what obstacles you went through in your life, and what other experiences you had on the way to where you are. For white people, it's really hard for a lot of us to see systemic racism, because we aren't the targets of it. How can we say a problem doesn't exist, simply because the problem doesn't affect us, or because we unknowingly benefit from it? It's easier to see the problem when you're the one who is suffering from the consequences, which white people aren't going to readily experience on a day-to-day basis. They might experience prejudices from other people sometimes, but they will never experience racism on an institutional level.

But the point of this blog entry isn't to open anyone's eyes on institutional racism. Either you believe in it, or you don't, and I'd wager a lot of conservatives deny it even exists. So I'm not here to change your mind on that. What I am trying to explain here is the mindset behind what liberals are trying to do for minorities. We're not trying to offer a helping hand or aid to someone who wouldn't otherwise make it out there in the world; we are trying to level the playing field. We realize not everyone is going to become a successful, rich person who loves their job as a CEO of some huge corporation. You have to work hard for that, want it, and make it happen for yourself - no matter what color you are. We aren't trying to make everyone equal in the end; we're trying to make everyone equal in the beginning. Everyone should start out with an equal chance of finishing the race, if at all possible. And then those who work really hard and have the intelligence, drive, and skills will finish the race. Whether you believe in systemic racism or not, THIS is the goal that liberals are trying to accomplish. We don't believe that minorities can't accomplish goals by themselves; we recognize that the system has given them extra obstacles to overcome on their way to success, and we believe that is not fair. If we have our way, everyone will start out with a clean slate. Is that such a bad goal to have? Is that not a noble cause to be a part of? Or does that just threaten you, because then you, as a white person, will be forced to fight fairly in order to reach your goals? There's a reason most minorities are liberal. They are not racist against themselves, and they don't want pity or help. If we liberals are just racist and don't believe minorities can make it on their own, then why do so many minorities agree with us and stand on our side?

Hopefully you now understand the goal of liberals, and how it's not racist or unrealistic to want everyone to start out with a clean slate with the same obstacles (for the most part, I mean; everyone has their own, unique obstacles in life). We realize not everyone will finish the race. That takes drive, effort, intelligence, skill, talent, and many, many more things. We realize that everyone will, naturally, have a different number of obstacles, and those obstacles will be of different calibers, based on personal experiences and upbringing. But that's not the goal. If you start out with a clean slate in a leveled playing field, (apart from the obstacles that we, as a system, can not control), then after that, you're on your own, and you're the only one who can make your dreams come true,. And that's how it should be. Now, if you believe we all already start out with a clean slate in a level playing field, then that's another debate for another day.

The first picture is where everyone starts out. The second picture is what conservatives think liberals are trying to do - take away from one to give to another. I'm sure that's what some liberals want, and even that picture appears to be pretty fair, since now everyone has a chance to see the game. As for the third picture, this is what most liberals want and is the most fair to everyone - remove the obstacles, or at least level them out. They all must work hard, save their money, and pay for a ticket, but at least now they all have the opportunity to see the game.

#109: It's a Privilege to Pee!

I'm genuinely shocked that this country has nothing better to do than regulate where people pee. Yes, you heard me correctly, and I know you know what I'm talking about. The government is now trying to force biological males to use male-only bathrooms, and to force biological females to use female-only bathrooms, regardless of one's gender identity. And get this. The guise they are using to justify this discrimination is to "protect women and children". This law has already passed in North Carolina, and there may be many more states to follow. Of course this non-issue really just seems like a silly distraction the media cooked up to keep bigger problems from being brought to people's attention, but this non-issue is relevant, so naturally, I want to discuss my opinion on the matter.

First off, maybe I should provide you with a little bit of background, just in case you have been living under a rock and haven't heard about this yet. We're talking about a bill that was just passed in North Carolina and may pass in other states, which keeps transgenders from using the bathroom they are more comfortable using, which aligns with their identity. It seems to be mostly leftists who agree that people have the right to pee where they please, while it seems to be mostly right-wingers who are afraid that this will open a door to perverted straight, cisgender men entering the women's restroom to attack women and little girls. I'd like to make a few points, which I think are pretty standard, which are points that a lot of people have been making, but I guess it's nice to compile them all into one nice blog entry for cis people to read while they sit in the comfort of the bathroom they have never had to worry whether or not they can use.

Sexual assault is a huge issue, and very few people are all for fighting against it than I am, but you have to realize what is an actual risk vs. what is not really a risk at all. From a woman's perspective, I have been afraid of being sexually assaulted pretty much anywhere and everywhere - walking on the street, in the workplace, at friends' houses, at parties, and even at home (at the hands of an intruder). I don't know a single woman who hasn't, at some point, been the victim of some kind of sexual assault, even if it was something as small as an unsolicited boob grab from a friend. But I tell you, never have I ever even thought once about being assaulted in a bathroom. That's the one place I've never given much thought about that, because it's just not something you hear about happening. It's just a place where people pee. There's like an unspoken law that most people follow, which states that no one shall violate the sanctity of the porcelain god or his followers who come to pray to him. It's like an old cathedral during the time of the gypsies - we all get to claim sanctuary when we enter those doors. The point is, this is a non-issue. This is a "problem" that someone made up to scare fear-mongers and distract everyone from the real issues our country, and the entire world, is facing right now.

But if we press the issue, why do general right-wingers think a law or a sign is going to stop perverts, should one actually decide to cause a problem in a bathroom? I mean, it's still illegal to peep, commit sexual assault, and harass people. If a pervert is going to ignore these laws, then surely he will ignore the one that says he can't dress up as a woman and enter the women's restroom to find his next victim. No one can really think a sign is going to stop a crime from happening if it's brewing. And what about little boys? As far as children go, the majority of children who are assaulted are done so by men - and it's usually a family member. (But we all know priests are very often the offenders.) This law isn't going to affect little boys at all, so maybe we should outlaw family functions and churches too. My point is, you can't protect everyone from everything, no matter how many rights you take away from people.

I beg you to tell me where you think transgenders have been peeing all along? They didn't just start popping up all over the place randomly in the past 10 years. They have always been around, so where have they been peeing? You have probably peed next to a transgender before and never knew it. Some are quite obviously transgender, but very many are very convincing - perhaps because they put effort into making their outward appearance match how they feel on the inside. So if transgenders have always been able to pee where they feel they belong, then by right-wingers' logic, why haven't we heard of more sexual assaults in women's bathrooms by straight cisgender men who have wrapped a skirt around their waist and put on a wig? There may have been a few scattered throughout time, but it is definitely not an epidemic. Studies have even shown that, in states where there are no discriminatory bathroom laws against transgenders, there have never been an unusual number of assaults in bathrooms, and in all of my research on this topic, I have only found out about one instance in which one man in Canada dressed up as a woman to enter the women's restroom, and stir up some trouble. ONE instance. This is why I call this a "non-issue", because we are arguing "what if" about a situation that will likely rarely occur, if ever! If you're going to argue for a law to be passed which ultimately causes the discrimination of an entire group of people, then there better be a legitimate risk at stake, not an irrational fear of a non-issue that is completely made up.

Speaking of which, it's funny how, when someone from the LGBTQ+ community is involved, right-wingers want to take away someone's rights based on "what if". What IF a woman is assaulted in a bathroom because we allowed transgenders to use the "wrong" bathroom? But when we turn it around on them and say, "But what IF someone gets shot because we allowed the sale of guns?", all of a sudden, right-wingers are on the opposite side of the argument, because we all know they love their guns. The only difference here is that one of these scenarios is not likely to happen, while the other WILL and DOES happen all the time. The truth of the matter is: BOTH should be perfectly legal. Shoot your guns, and pee where you want to, because this is America, land of the free! And we should be free to pee!

You know what else is interesting? The fact that women are being used as a scapegoat here. And I'm not just targeting right-wingers with this one; I'm targeting everyone, because both parties are guilty of this. Whenever someone wants to make a point for their cause, that person always uses women and children to justify their ridiculousness, whether it's to promote hatred and discrimination or something else entirely. We are always sitting in their back pocket, being completely ignored and ridiculed until we are needed to make a point that makes no sense. When I tell men I'm afraid when men cat-call me on the streets, they tell me I shouldn't be afraid but flattered. When I bring up feminism, men silence me without even understanding what feminism really is. When I bring up rape culture, men tell me it doesn't exist. When I tell a man no, and that I am not interested, he calls me all kinds of hideous names and degrades my appearance. And in many cases, the man becomes violent and/or takes from the woman what he wants anyway. Speaking of general right-wingers only this time, when women want to pass laws to help ourselves rise above all of this, they almost always shut us down - whether they take away our healthcare, our right to our own body, or our maternity leave. And don't get me started on how right-wingers treat women when we are raped - victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and accusing us of "asking for it". But it's just lovely to see that, all of a sudden, we matter when it proves their point. And that, my friends, is why this is not really about protecting women and children. Check out this well-written article for more of this point: https://driftingthrough.com/2016/04/29/your-silence-is-deafening-an-open-letter-to-the-target-boycotters/. This one is even better: http://americannewsx.com/human-interest/mom-shreds-every-bathroom-banner-startling-rant-everyone-must-read/.

And what about the hypocrisy? Right-wingers say they are all about small government, but now they want to regulate our private parts? Well, they've always tried to regulate women's private parts, but this is getting out of hand. They are literally trying to dictate where we pee, and right-wingers (speaking generally) don't see a problem with this? This is how tyranny starts. You give the government the right to dictate the small things we do in our daily lives, and now, all of a sudden, it's like we are living in an Ayn Rand book. Next thing you know, we'll have to pay to pee, like in that musical "Urinetown". They will deem it a "privilege to pee" and start charging us for it. I think the government has enough control over our lives as it is, don't you? The government doesn't have to step in to regulate everything, you know. We can have social norms and expectations without involving government regulations.

The irony here is, what right-wingers are trying to prevent is what they are causing to happen. They say they don't want men in women's bathrooms. Well, guess what? They're the ones putting men in women's bathrooms! If you put a transgender man (meaning he was born a woman biologically) - someone who looks like a man, smells like a man, talks like a man, and acts like a man - into a woman's restroom, then you are putting a man in a woman's restroom! As far as I'm concerned, that is a man, because all I can see is what is on the outside. I'm not going to drop his pants to see that there is actually a vagina down there; all I see is a rugged man with a beard and huge biceps in a muscle shirt, and that would creep me out much more than a transgender woman in a dress, wig, and lipstick, whose genitals I'll never even see to prove she is anything other than a woman. I don't know how other women feel about this, but coming from this woman, I am more than comfortable with transgender women using my bathroom, and I don't fear cisgender male predators dressing as women to gain access to my bathroom and assault me. Also, think about it. If the law says we can pee where we so choose, then the fear is that predators will dress as trans women to assault women. But if the law says we have to pee in the bathroom that matches our biological sex, then predators don't even have to dress up in order to gain access to women's restrooms! A cisgender male predator could just waltz right into a woman's restroom, beard and muscles and all, and claim to have been born with a vagina! What are we going to do? Force him to drop his pants to prove he has a vagina? And boom! Predators have now gained even easier access to women in women's restrooms. So instead of claiming to be a trans woman, they can just claim to be a trans man, and they don't even have to bother going to the trouble of dressing up. Either way, with or without this law, nothing is being accomplished, except the victimization of actual trans people. This further proves my argument that this law is silly and pointless, because people are going to do what they want to do. It's a lose-lose situation. We can't protect everyone from everything, no matter how hard we try. I beg everyone reading this to consider every standpoint and think this topic all the way through before deciding which side to stand on.

And the even bigger irony here is that general right-wingers say they want to protect women, but they don't realize that this is causing the exact opposite to happen. What about the safety of transgender women and men? It's funny how safety is only an issue when heterosexuals and cisgender people are in question. You stick a transgender woman wearing a dress in the men's bathroom, and what to do you think is going to happen? There have already been 2 cases that I've heard of, maybe more, in which transgender men were forced to use the women's bathroom, due to this law being passed in North Carolina, and guess what happened to them. They were assaulted, humiliated, harassed, and kicked out of the bathroom. Yes, in both instances, a biological female was kicked out of the women's bathroom by police officers, because they did not look like women. I saw the video of one occurrence, in which a (presumably) cisgender lesbian woman was followed into the women's bathroom by several male police officers, who asked to see her ID. She did not have her ID on her, so the officers put their hands on her and forced her to leave the restroom, despite the protests of every other woman in that bathroom. Talk about forming a police state! I don't know about you, but when I want to pee, I don't anticipate, nor do I desire for, male police officers to barge into the restroom and cause a scene. So the following question is directed toward the people reading this who still disagree with me on the matter: You force people to use the "correct" restroom, but when they do, you assault, harass, humiliate, and maybe even arrest them; how does that make any sense?

I don't even know why we are bothering to argue about this. It's not like anyone will know which biological sex you are when you pick a bathroom to use. There is no way to properly regulate this law. Cops aren't going to stand outside every single bathroom, demanding that we lift our skirts or remove our pants before we enter a restroom. They can ask for an ID, but not everyone will have his/her ID on them, and kids certainly won't have IDs. Also, I have heard that most transgenders typically change their IDs to match their gender identity as soon as they can. But that is a waste of police resources and time, it's a major overstep in their authority, and it is a total invasion of privacy, especially when cops follow someone into the bathroom to remove him/her. Literally the only things this law is causing are more problems, such as a greater divide between different groups of people, even more justified discrimination, hostility, anxiety, even more assault against transgenders, discomfort for everyone, embarrassment, and maybe even a tyrannical police state. Congratulations to all who haven't thought this through.

Look, we all know what's going on here. This isn't about protecting women or children; we've established that general right-wingers don't care about our safety. So come clean. If you're not just lying to us, then you're lying to yourself. If you're going to justify discrimination, then at least be honest about it. It's about being afraid of something you don't understand. Look, it's ok to not be able to understand something that you've never experienced yourself or through your loved ones. But it's not ok to not show sympathy for people you don't understand. See, humans have a habit of fearing things which they can not readily understand or explain. But it's 2016. It's time to love everyone and embrace our differences already. Rise above! And if you really and truly do fear for the women and children in your life, then consider the facts and logic I've explained in this blog entry before you choose, once again, to be on the wrong side of history.

Skipping to the end to read the conclusion? Too lazy to read all of this and want a good laugh? Check out the liberal redneck's video on this issue at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov-ocQpQtrw&feature=youtu.be. Majorly profane language alert! Don't say I didn't warn you. I also really like my favorite YouTuber's outlook & explanation of this issue, so check out her video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6-lx1DBbB4. Also, if you want some statistics on the matter, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IevheSbr4k&feature=youtu.be.

If you take anything from this blog entry, please take from it that all anyone wants to do in the restroom is pee. That's it. I mean, sometimes we do other things that are appropriate in the restroom, but for the sake of this argument and not getting too graphic, we all just want the same thing: to pee, and to be left alone whilst we are doing so.

 To diffuse the tension with not only hilarity, but truth.

This is Corey, a transgender girl. If this was your daughter, would you be comfortable sending her into the men's room? Because this law would make it illegal for her to use the ladies' room where she obviously belongs, based on the fact that she was born with male anatomy.

 As a cisgender woman, I can't imagine what transgender people go through on a day to day basis or what tough decisions they have to make, so I try to make life as easy as possible for them.

 If you truly do just have an irrational fear that women and children will be assaulted in bathrooms if transgenders are allowed to use the "wrong" restroom, then I'm not calling you a bigot. However, you are being a bit silly and not paying attention to the statistics on the matter.

Want to support a store that supports equality and abhors discrimination? Target has already stated they will have non-discriminatory bathrooms for everyone. This is causing a lot of people to boycott them, so if you're proud of them for making the right decision and standing up to the bullies of this nation, then support them.

#108: Dear Trump-Supporting "Friend"

Ever since the beginning of political parties, and honestly, probably since the beginning of this country’s government, many people have chosen one side or the other – one extreme or the other. Either you’re a die-hard Republican or a die-hard Democrat; there aren’t a whole lot of people who go back and forth or claim a third party. During the presidential election of 1996 between Bill Clinton & Bob Dole, many Republicans said they would die if Clinton served a second term, but alas, when Clinton won, very few people died. In 2000, it was between Al Gore & George W. Bush, and many Democrats threatened to leave the country if Bush won, but alas, when Bush won, very few people left the country. And when the candidates were Barack Obama & Mitt Romney in 2012, tons of Republicans foresaw the end of the world if Obama were to win what would be his second term as president, but alas, when Obama won again, the world did not end. My point is, people talk. People pitch temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. And it can be difficult for some people when they love their country, and they view the opposing party as an enemy that is making changes to their country that they may not find agreeable.

For example, I never liked former GOP President George W. Bush. I think he was an unintelligent & reckless president. The U.S. is STILL cleaning up after his war-loving & money-wasting ways. But at least he seemed like a generally nice guy. I mean he didn’t seem racist, chauvinist, or xenophobic. If I didn’t know the guy, and he had never been a U.S. president, I might enjoy having a cup of coffee with him & a group of friends, as long as we didn’t discuss politics. While I think he was dangerous while in power, I still think he meant well. And yes, I was one of the Democrats that threatened to leave the U.S. if Bush was elected president (both times) but never did, because my country wasn’t in that much trouble. It was in trouble, for sure, but it wasn’t in trouble of immediately crumbling to pieces and becoming something unrecognizably disgusting, so I rode it out – for 8 ridiculous years.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something 110% more sinister. I’m talking about the GOP front-runner in the 2016 presidential primary, Donald J. Trump. When I say I can’t stand Trump, and that I fear for my country’s future in the hands of this man, I’m serious. It’s not at all like when I jokingly told my dad “Dead world walking!” when George W. Bush was elected president the first time. That could be taken as halfway joking. But with Trump, I’m serious. When people tell me “Think of how much you hate Trump; that’s how much I hate [2016 Democratic presidential primary candidate] Bernie Sanders.” No. Just No. You’re not getting it. You dislike Sanders, because you look at socialism as a dirty word. You dislike Sanders, because you are not as liberal as he is. You dislike Sanders, because you don’t like high taxes. I dislike Trump, because he is a racist, chauvinistic, xenophobic, & Islamophobic narcissist, and he is an actual threat to the physical and emotional safety, as well as to the civil liberties and rights, of my country and the people who live here. We have seen what happens when evil people are given power, and many people in this country blindly want to give Trump the highest of powers in this country. This is no longer a “haha, funny” joking matter or a friendly game of “Whose Candidate Will Win?” between two friends. This has now become genuinely dangerous. And what is just as scary is the sheer number of people who follow Trump and believe his rhetoric. I knew there were hateful, racist xenophobes in this country, but I had absolutely NO clue the problem was this bad until Trump brought them all to the surface for everyone to clearly see. And what is infinitely worse is what our children are seeing from someone who aspires to govern this nation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA).

We are talking about a man who wants to spend trillions of dollars on the mass deportation of an entire group of people, all the while forcing another country to build a huge, expensive wall to block this race of people out of the U.S. completely. A man who wants to do away with birthright citizenship, so that he can deport American citizens who were born here – to where exactly? Who knows? This is a man who wants to ban everyone of one specific religion from entering the U.S, as well as force the ones already here to wear special I.D. badges. (Sound familiar? Adolf Hitler did this.) This is a man who, when confronted about his sexism by a female reporter with genuine, hard-hitting questions, responded that she must be on her period. A man who, in the face of a woman who needed to pump breast milk to feed her baby, said “That’s disgusting” and shamed her for giving her baby the necessary nourishment for life. A man who spoke sexually about his own daughter and speaks about all women as if the only thing we are worth is our looks & bodies. A man who found a statistic about instances of rape on the rise in the military, and responded by asking the world of Twitter what we all expect to happen when putting men and women together in the military, as if men are uncontrollable, wild animals who will rape a woman any chance they get. This is a man who has raped and cheated on women in the past, and instead of being ashamed, he is proud of it and boasts about it on international television. We are talking about a man who disrespects military personnel, as he denies that a prisoner of war was a war hero, simply because he was caught by the enemy. A man who publicly mocked a mentally disabled person. A man who incites fear, anger, and violence at every opportunity, such as offering to pay the legal fees of any of his supporters who commits assault against protesters at his rallies, or advocating for the murder of terrorists' families, whether they are innocent or not. A man who publicly suggested that his supporters assassinate his opponent, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A man who, in the face of genuine questions that Americans need to know in order to choose the best presidential candidate, laughs, scoffs, pokes fun at people, makes jokes, & calls his critics indecent names. This man says and does what he wants without any regard for the feelings or rights of others.  He is rude, narcissistic, condescending, arrogant, hateful, obnoxious, & boisterous, and the rhetoric he spews isn't even the truth most of the time; put simply, he's a liar. He is clearly racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, & misogynistic. He is reckless and dangerous, and he uses scare tactics to recruit angry, fear-mongering fools to join his army. He uses this anger & fear to divide this country, rather than encourage people to come together.

And as I said, Trump’s followers are almost as dangerous as Trump himself. This man has inspired his followers to urinate and assault a homeless Mexican man, while they told him to get out of their country.  (These men didn’t even know if the Mexican man was here legally or not, making this not about illegal immigration, but about racial hatred.) His followers scream “White power!” at his rallies and are quite often openly racist. His followers like to speak for everyone else by saying that Trump is just saying out loud what everyone is thinking. (Let me be clear, Trump is NOT saying what I’M thinking; he is only saying what hate-filled racists are thinking.) This man has the support of the KKK, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-Un, for crying out loud! His followers are not only bigots but also cowards, as they are motivated by fear, anger, and hatred. They are unintelligent, ignorant, uneducated, & uninformed. They believe everything they hear Trump say, most of which are lies, but they don't bother to actually learn the truth and recognize that Trump is just telling them what they want to hear, because he knows they're angry. (Take, for example, the poll that recently exposed that 41% of Trump supporters that participated in the poll voted in favor of bombing Agrabah. For anyone who may not know, Agrabah is the fictional city in the Disney movie Aladdin.) These people make up Trump’s fan base! And they will most likely be voting in the upcoming presidential election.

If you are not yet convinced of what this man is, and how much of a danger he and his followers pose to this country, consider how he is unqualified and has no clue what he’s doing. When asked a simple question as to what he will do as president, he answers with nothing but drivel, babbling about “mak[ing] America great again” without actually explaining what he thinks is wrong with America, nor divulging his plans for how he specifically wants to accomplish this goal. Not only would he have no clue what to do in office, but he would make some extremely important decisions that, in his state of mind, would be reckless and inevitably cause a downfall in our entire system – and not in a good way. He is a threat to national security, as he would be negotiating with foreign powers, but the careless things that he says would likely cause many of our allies to turn their backs on us, but it would also likely cause other countries to attack us. Take Muslims for instance; he has openly disparaged all Muslims, and they make up 1.6 billion people in the world. If he enrages an entire huge group of people like that, we could end up in another world war. Trump is too emotional and has about as much self-control as a toddler. On the opposite end, he could become enraged at a foreign entity and lose complete control of himself. We don't need someone like that in charge of our nuclear codes! Onto his resume now: He has never held public office nor served in the military; he has made his way to the top simply by being a businessman who has gone bankrupt multiple times, and has had more failed businesses than I can count off hand. Check out this news article (and there are many more out there just like this one) to read about how Trump often doesn't pay companies that he hires to do jobs for him: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/. Trump alleges that he is all for creating and protecting jobs, yet investigations have turned up hundreds of small business owners who Trump never paid for services their companies delivered to him. In 30 years, Trump has been involved in over 3,500 such lawsuits! In fact, he is currently in the middle of a lawsuit for committing fraud in one of his failed businesses, Trump University. The last time his tax records were made public, it was revealed that he had paid $0 in federal taxes, cheating the system, and now he refuses to release his latest taxes, which leads many people to believe he has continued to commit such tax fraud. He doesn't believe that the rules which apply to everyone else should apply to him as well. As Oklahoma state senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out in a brilliant video she recently made (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpLFsememc), Trump drives on the roads that U.S. citizens pay for; uses workers to build his businesses, whose education U.S. citizens pay for; and benefits from a police force, which U.S. citizens fund. Donald Trump has not contributed one bit to any of that, yet he benefits from it all. Is such a selfish, fraudulent, unfair man the kind of candidate U.S. citizens should trust or desire as their leader? Where else will he cut corners as president? He deceives U.S. citizens and puts all of the financial burden of keeping this country going on the impoverished citizens of this country, while he basks in his wealthy glory, as if he is more deserving than everyone else. He only makes money from committing fraud, cheating people, not paying his bills or his taxes, and from his inheritance. He started it all by using Daddy's money! He was, luckily for him, born into a rich family, and his father gave him a million dollars to start up his businesses. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same if my dad gave me a million dollars to start some businesses, but his supporters give him way too much credit for being a "good businessman". If he had actually wisely invested the money he was given, he would be worth billions more dollars than he is worth now, but he didn't do that, because he's NOT a good businessman, as if that even matters. You can't run a country like a business anyway, because a country is not a business. And if my country is to be run like a business, then I certainly would rather entrust it in the hands of a businessman who doesn't have a track record like Trump's. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a modern-day United States version of Adolf Hitler, and he is making his way to power. The only differences are 1. This is the U.S, not Germany, attempting to eradicate Mexicans and Muslims, rather than Jews, and 2. At least Hitler held office and served in his country’s armed forces prior to taking power.

Every time I turn on the radio, hosts on every station have something to say in reference to blasting Donald Trump. Comedians everywhere are having a ball making fun of him in their bits. Celebrities everywhere denounce him. Politicians and the general public alike, many of which have always been Republicans, have been not only denouncing Trump but leaving the party altogether to either join the Democratic or Libertarian parties. If you don't believe me, check out this letter from GOP National Security officials, who have been lifetime Republicans, some of which even served in President George W. Bush's cabinet, but refuse to vote for Trump: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html?_r=0. When making an anti-Trump ad, Hillary Clinton didn't even have to make her own statements against him to put together a great ad; all she had to do was compile statements from powers in the GOP against Trump, so the ad basically wrote itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOocb-DId4. People all over the world wonder where Americans' brains have gone. I've gotten message after message from my foreign friends begging me to not let this maniac become our president. The world thinks we've lost our marbles! Foreign powers and citizens, alike, are terrified, because the United States is one of the world's largest super powers; what we do often affects the entire world. And when we ask why other countries are making fun of us, they always point to the Donald. They don't seem to have any qualms with any of the other presidential candidates, just Trump. He is making Americans ashamed to live in the United States of America, as we have now become a complete joke and the laughing stock of the world.

I know this is turning out to be an incredibly long entry without getting to the point of it all, but I guess I needed to get as much background venting done as possible. Now, with all of this said, I want to write a letter to any of my “friends” who are or are considering becoming Trump supporters:

Dear Trump-supporting “friend,"

I wish I could be sorry to you for being so genuinely angry that you are a Trump supporter, rather than being able to agree to disagree and respect your opinions, no matter how different they are from mine. I wish I could sincerely apologize for being brash when talking to you about this, but if I apologized, it would be a lie. I wish I could truthfully show remorse over what I’m about to say, and I truly hope you will understand why I feel the way I do about this.

Depending on how long I’ve known you, I’ve probably accepted our differences before. I’m liberal, and I’m sure you’re conservative, but somewhere along the line, we found some common ground and looked past something that is a potential problem for other people. But it was never a problem for us, because we respected each other’s differences. The reason I am so genuinely upset with you and can’t accept our differences this time is because of the gravity of this situation. I truly believe Donald Trump is the epitome of evil and anti-intellect. He is a terrible person and would be an even worse leader. I may be upset with the state that my country is in currently, but I do love my country. I want the best for this place, and I have been proud of many accomplishments we have made in recent times. Donald Trump would ruin all of that. He would be the downfall of the U.S.A. as we know it. This country would become something unrecognizable – something dark and disturbing – ironically like the corrupt countries in the Middle East that you hate so much. Watching the imbecile leader of my country strip people of their religious rights, spend gobs of money to eradicate an entire race of people from my country, and turn this country into a place where only white radical Republican Christians are welcome would be heart-breaking. What Trump calls for is completely un-American and morally wrong. It would be completely backwards to what we have always done, which has always made this country great, which is not only accept but embrace different types of people from all over the world. If Trump were to become president, that would be the end of my alliance to this country, as I would feel that my country had become something different than what it has always been – something that I wouldn’t be able to, in good conscience, associate myself with. I view him as a modern-day U.S. version of Adolf Hitler. Would you want to associate yourself with a Nazi sympathizer? If you support him and/or vote for him, then you perpetuate the worst things that have ever happened or could ever happen in this world. If you could ever think like this man and aren’t disgusted by him, then I can’t say I’m sorry that I look at you as a completely different person that I feel like I must have never truly ever known.

I’ve explained my moral issues with Trump, but believe it or not, it actually goes even deeper than that – to a personal level. I take it personally that you would even think for a minute that Trump would be a good leader for this country. It feels like a personal attack, which people are not supposed to do to their friends. I feel betrayed. I feel like you never actually cared about me or the people I love if you would support someone who wants to hurt us. Why is this personal for me? There are several reasons:

1. This is my country you’re messing with. As I’ve said, Trump wants to warp this country into the most disgusting, un-American place in the world. When he’s finished, we won’t even recognize this country – and not in a good way. This U.S. is where I live; it’s where I’m from. I love my country, and at least for now, I want to stay here. But I don’t want to live in a country ruled by a bigoted tyrant who thinks the only people that matter are the people who are just like he is. I would hate life here if Trump won the presidency, and I feel like I would have no other choice but to leave (if I could muster up the funds to do so.) Much like many Democrats, I joked about leaving the country when George W. Bush entered office both times, but that was a joke. I’m not joking anymore.

2. I am a female, and Trump is quite obviously a misogynist. He couldn’t care less about women’s rights or their feelings. He talks about us as if the only thing we are worth is our appearance and bodies. He degrades us every chance he gets. If you support him, then you agree with him that I should be dehumanized, and that I’m only worth something if I look good. If you are a woman, then you should be equally disturbed by this, so if you’re not, then maybe you have a case of Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe it’s idiocy or willful ignorance; I really don’t know, but I do know that I don’t want anything to do with a woman who doesn’t stand for women’s rights. If you’re a man, you should also be equally disturbed by this, because you should want women to be treated respectfully and as equals, so if you support a presidential candidate who doesn’t have women’s rights toward the top of his priority list, then you are not the kind of man I need in my life.

3. I have dated the rainbow. I have friends who are every color, from every country, from every background, are every gender and gender identity, & are of every sexual orientation. I have family that makes up different genders (of course) and sexual orientations as well. If you would support racism/xenophobia against my Mexican friends, Islamophobia against my Muslim friends, sexism against my female friends, homophobia against my LGBTQ+ friends, as well as many other issues that Trump perpetuates, then you are against my friends and family, who happen to be some of the most important people in my life.

4. I stand for all of the causes mentioned in #3. If you know enough about me to have ever considered yourself my friend, then you should know how important they are to me. I stand with Black Lives Matter (the activists that are protesting peacefully.) I stand for religious freedom and understand that 99.9% of Muslims are not terrorists. I embrace diversity. I stand for LGBTQ+ rights and women’s rights. If you support Trump, who not only doesn’t support any of these causes, but actually works AGAINST them all, then you are against everything I stand for.

5. This is the most important reason that your admiration for Trump insults me personally. The single most important person in my life is my boyfriend. I intend to marry him when the funds are available and every part of our lives fall into place. He is sticking around, so anything that is his problem is also my problem. He is Mexican-American. He was born here in America and has never even been to Mexico, but his parents are Mexican-born. Their parents brought them here in hopes of a better life when they were both teenagers. Yes, they came here illegally, because coming here legally is almost impossible. They have been here in the U.S. for more than 25 years now, and circumstances have changed. Illegal statuses have now changed to legal statuses, and my boyfriend’s mom even wants to apply for citizenship soon. They are good people. They have never committed a crime. They live here peacefully and are not on government assistance or receiving government benefits; they work hard and honestly for their money.

Despite this turnout, I realize not everyone’s situation is the same. I realize there are some illegal immigrants who are criminals; some are on government assistance, and some receive government benefits that they should not receive if they are here illegally. Some people take advantage of the system, and it’s not ok. (Although, the majority of people on welfare are white, so far more white people take advantage of the system than immigrants, but I get that this is a problem.) Although I understand illegal immigrants’ situation, since it is pretty much impossible for Hispanics in particular to get into the U.S. legally, I do believe that everyone should enter this country legally. But deporting an entire race of people from this country is not the way to go about rectifying the situation. It would cost trillions of dollars that we don’t have, and it would inevitably make it all about race. (Think about it. There are plenty of illegal immigrants that are white from European countries and black from African countries, but no one would ever suspect they are not here legally, because they look like everyone else, so the only people who would be sought out and deported would be the Hispanics.) I have my own idea of how to make illegal immigration less of a problem, and believe me, I do believe it’s a problem – maybe not the #1 problem in the world today but a problem, yes. But deporting an entire race of people from this country is not the way to fix the problem.

Now, what I just explained is actually just something I wanted to touch on, but there is a worse problem here that makes me out of my mind furious. As I said, my boyfriend was born here in the U.S. He has never even been to Mexico; as a matter of fact, he has never even been outside of this country. But Trump wants to end birthright citizenship, so that he can deport “anchor babies,” which Trump defines as children who were born here, because their parents came here illegally and decided to reproduce in order to lay down roots here. While my boyfriend was an unplanned baby, Trump would still technically define him as an “anchor baby,” because his parents were here illegally when they had him. You want to know a good way to turn me into Psycho Jo? Threaten to take away the most important person in my life. He is the best man I’ve ever known for many reasons, and I count my lucky stars every single day that he chose me, out of every other woman on the planet. He’s everything to me, and he’s an absolutely incredible man. Whether or not you agree with Trump on ending birthright citizenship, so he can deport “anchor babies,” is a moot point. If you would support a candidate that wants to do something so outrageous and deport the love of my life, who has just as much of a right to be here as you and I do, then you can’t blame me for despising you. You should completely understand, and I hope that makes you ashamed of yourself enough to re-think who you want to support in this presidential race.

If this does not sway you or even make you question yourself and your morals, then I don’t have anything else to say, except goodbye. If I ever loved you or currently love you, then I will always be there for you if you need me, but I have to take a step back.

Sincerest as I’ve ever been,

Jo

 I'm trying to lighten the mood after all this seriousness.

#FeelTheBern

#107: The Paradox of Tolerance

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m big on fighting for the rights of the underdog, whether that person is black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, transgender, a woman, etc. A lot of people don’t know why I care so much. I’m white, so I’m on top. Shouldn’t that make me happy? Or even if it doesn’t make me happy, why should it make me mad? Meanwhile, I’m over here wondering why it doesn’t make everyone mad – no matter who you are. I have been approached by multiple people (and even if it hasn’t been me that has been approached personally, I have seen it happen in front of me,) who contend that I am intolerant of intolerant people. They say I preach tolerance, but I need to tolerate people who hold different opinions, or else I am going against what I am preaching. So I’m here to explain to everyone what exactly I am preaching when I ask people to be tolerant of others.

When I ask you to be tolerant, I’m asking you to tolerate the existence of people in this world that are of a different race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, & sex than you. I am asking you to be kind to your Muslim neighbor who has never said a rude thing to you. I am asking you to be civil to the black guy at work who has always been a stand-up employee. I’m asking you to give basic respect to the woman who asked you to stop grabbing her backside at the club. I’m asking you to leave that gay teenager alone & stop yelling at him for his “lifestyle choice.” I am asking you to tolerate the existence of people who are different from you & just live your own life the way you choose to live it.

That is a whole lot different than you asking me to tolerate your racism. To these people who have told me I need to tolerate them for their beliefs, I now speak directly to you. I tolerate you for believing that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.  I tolerate you for believing that all other religions are inferior to yours, because according to you, your religion is the “true” religion. I tolerate you for only being attracted to people with your same skin color. I am tolerant of you for your general opinions and attributes that make us different. I think everyone should be. What I do NOT tolerate are your actions & speech that are meant to oppress marginalized groups of people. I will NOT tolerate you spitting on a random person who appears to be Muslim. I will NOT tolerate you disowning your daughter for choosing a male gender identity. I will NOT tolerate you using racial slurs on social media. I will NOT tolerate you voting for a presidential candidate who pushes for the eradication of an entire race of people or religious group from our country. I can tolerate you for your beliefs & opinions without tolerating your actions & speech, and I should NOT be expected to tolerate your blatant acts & speech affiliated with racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. toward other human beings.

We are not talking about your opinion on your favorite food, your favorite color, or where you like to buy your jeans. We are talking about how you affect other people with your actions & speech. We are talking about you participating in & perpetuating the oppression of other human beings. And we aren’t even talking about your personal opinions of other people; we are talking about the way you treat them. Would you have told Matthew Sheppard to tolerate his bullies, who ended up murdering him over his sexual orientation? Would you have told Martin Luther King, Jr. to tolerate the racists who wanted to keep him from getting his basic human rights? Would you tell that Muslim girl on the train to tolerate the man yelling islamophobic slurs at her? Then WHY would you ask me to tolerate the nasty, terrible way that you treat and talk about other people based on silly things, such as their race.

I’ll give you an example. My best friend is a Christian. I am not. I’m sure she thinks her religion is superior to others, because she believes Christianity is the only “true” religion, and I know she isn’t happy that I do not consider myself a Christian. But she respects people of other religions, and she respects me for my lack of religion. She believes marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. I do not. And even though this is her belief, I have known her to have several gay friends. THIS is tolerance. She tolerates people of different religions & sexual orientations, even though she doesn’t believe it’s right to believe in a religion other than hers, or that it’s right for a man to love another man. She also tolerates me for holding opposite beliefs. In turn, I tolerate her beliefs in Christianity and “traditional marriage.” But if she ever persecuted non-Christians or LGBTQ+ people, I would NOT tolerate that, nor should I be expected to. Thankfully I don’t have to worry about her doing that, because she is a decent human being, and that’s why she’s my best friend.

As soon as you start to tolerate intolerant people, you are exhibiting cowardice. You are neglecting to fight for what you believe in & stand up for the oppressed. That is the paradox of tolerance! You can not tolerate people who oppress others or spew hatred; you can only tolerate normal people who are just living their own lives & not bothering anyone. That’s what bugs me so much about people who say “Well, you preach tolerance, but you only mean you should tolerate people who agree with you.” No. That’s not it at all. If you are spewing hatred, no one is required to tolerate that or listen to it. But we are required to be decent, civil human beings to people who have not hurt us in any way, but just happen to be a different race, religion, etc. than we are.

Why is this important to get out there? Because your actions & speech have more impact than you probably think. There are gay teens listening to your hate speech & committing suicide. Two men listened to Donald Trump spew his hatred toward Mexicans, and it inspired them to beat up & urinate on a homeless Mexican man. Hate crimes & suicide happen all the time, and it originates from people who are not tolerant of others, so they take that intolerance and turn it into speech & actions that affect everyone else in the most repulsive ways. So no, I will NOT tolerate your intolerance.

 Affect.*

No.

#106: The Right to Die

Morbid blog entry alert! The faint of heart need to turn back now! You have been warned.

At the end of 2014, there was news buzzing about Oregon’s relatively new act called “Death with Dignity” when Brittany Maynard, 29, who was terminally ill with brain cancer, chose to leave her home in California to move to Oregon and become a resident there, so she could take advantage of this new act. On November 1, 2014, Maynard passed away on her own terms, in her own bed in Oregon, surrounded by family, rather than succumbing to her terminal disease, which would have caused her to painfully waste away in front of her family.

In order to be eligible for the Death with Dignity Act, you must be a resident of a state that has passed the act: Oregon, Vermont, & Washington (soon to be California as well.) Montana also has a similar act in place. Also, in order to qualify, no fewer than two doctors must deem you mentally sound and terminally ill, as well as give you a prognosis of 6 months or less to live. You would not be eligible just based on age or disability. In the event that you are eligible, you may choose one of multiple ways to die on your own terms. Maynard chose to die by ingesting doctor-prescribed pills.

There were, as expected, many critics of this poor young woman’s decision. Many people believe suicide to be wrong or a “sin.” A lot of people contend that it should not be our choice if we live or die; it should be the choice of a higher power or the universe itself. Many people even say that, if you pray to a higher power, you will be healed, and if you are not healed, then the higher power will take you when he/she is ready for you to go. A lot of people who believe in the existence of Heaven & Hell believe that people who commit suicide will no longer be eligible to enter the pearly gates of Heaven, and instead, are doomed to an eternity in Hell. Many people said she should have tried whatever she could to try to survive. Many people believe suicide to be selfish, as you leave behind family that may depend on you, and if they don’t depend on you, they still love you and will hurt when they lose you. For all of these reasons, Maynard endured backlash for her decision. But Maynard countered that she was not committing suicide, because dying was not even a choice for her: “I am not suicidal…I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.” (You can read all about Maynard’s story on www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/.

Put aside your personal beliefs as to whether or not suicide is wrong, or whether or not this situation qualifies as suicide. Let’s think realistically about what this act is. It’s mercy. Once Maynard found out she had terminal brain cancer, she basically lived at the hospital. The doctors told her the tumor would just keep getting worse, and there was no cure for it. They could try to extend her life past her prognosis of 6 months by giving her full brain radiation, a long, painful procedure that wasn’t even guaranteed to make a difference at all. There was no treatment that could save her life, and the recommended treatments would destroy what little life she had left. Doctors told her she would waste away for weeks or even months in extreme pain, while her family watched her lose her verbal, cognitive, and motor skills. It would have been a painful process for both her and her family. THIS was the only life she had left to look forward to, and with only misery left ahead of her, Maynard thought the best decision was to end her life before it became unbearable for all parties involved.

Today on Facebook, I read an article about an elderly couple who committed suicide by jumping in front of an oncoming train, because the wife was wasting away after a brain aneurism, and the husband did not want to live without her. While this is a sad yet still sweet story, this is what happens when people are not allowed to end their lives legally with medical assistance. An innocent, unknowing, unwilling third party (the train conductor) was forcibly involved in this tragic accident, and he will never forget or probably forgive himself for taking 2 lives, even if it wasn’t his fault or done intentionally. A husband and wife died tragically, instead of dying peacefully in their bed. They died alone, rather than surrounded by family and friends. No one knew until right before it happened, when the husband called his son to tell him they loved him, so instead of being let down easy over time, the family was struck with shock and grief. I think the Death with Dignity Act will keep things like this from happening, so it might help way more than hurt.

Now, moving into a bit of a different direction, many people believe it is our right to die with dignity if we are already going to die soon, but I think far fewer people believe it is our right to die at any point in our lives, no matter the circumstances. If a person, whether mentally sound or not, whether terminally ill, just plain old, completely disabled, or perfectly healthy and young, should it be a person’s right to take his/her own life if he/she wishes to do so? I think most people will say no. I think there will be varying reasons why, but I want an answer with substance. When people use excuses such as, it’s a “sin,” it’s wrong, or it’s selfish, I can’t help but think that those answers are just opinions. A lot of people don’t even believe in “sin,” as a lot of people are not Christians, and a lot of people have different understandings as to what qualifies as “wrong.” If there is no direct victim, how can something be wrong? If a person chooses to take his/her own life, it is only directly affecting him/her, not anyone else. For instance, if you murder someone else, it wasn’t that person’s choice to die; he/she is the victim, so murder is wrong. Or if you’re a Christian, murder is a “sin.” And as far as “selfish” goes, everyone has their own opinion on that. Typically when people are so depressed that they want to die, they feel like their family & friends would be better off without them, so they feel like suicide is actually a noble & selfless cause, so this point is also debatable. So if someone simply doesn’t enjoy life & doesn’t want to live anymore, you might have your own morals that make you wish they would fight for their lives & find their happiness, but who are we to tell other people how to live or how to die? Is it our right to interfere?

And if everyone should have the right to die, then are there any reasons to ever deny someone that right? A lot of people agree the terminally ill should have this right, but what about people who are simply old & wasting away? People who are sickly but don’t have a terminal disease? People who are severely disabled? What about people who are physically healthy and young but simply don’t want to live? Should we deny people based on whether or not they are mentally sound? Should we even force them to get a doctor’s opinion, or should we just let them choose their fate & follow through with it?

Please understand I’m not condoning suicide, nor am I trying to make excuses for why it should be legal for people to kill themselves. I am simply asking what other people think about the subject, because I think this is an interesting talking point. However, I do believe the Death with Dignity Act is a great act that should be made available everywhere. No one should have to waste away in severe pain & misery due to a terminal illness, especially when the family would have to watch it happen. Thoughts?

 Brittany Maynard before she passed with dignity.