The Age of Consent

OK, So yesterday I said that I was going to start the rants again in hope to get to 100 by the time the blog turns One in November.  That is only about ten per month, so that seems doable.  I figured that I would start with the one that seems to me to be one of the most controversial: The Age of Consent.

Even thought that this is a gay oriented blog, I don’t want to talk about JUST the age of consent for sex, but rather the age of consent for everything.  So first off, lets talk a look at what most of the consent ages are.  Please keep in mind that since this blog is based in the United States, I’m going off those numbers.

• To get your drivers license – 16
• To vote and smoke – 18
• To join the military – 18
• To drink – 21
• To have sex – 16 to 18

We live in Los Angeles, and there are a ton of teen drivers around here, and if you have ever visited, the I-10, 5, 15, 405, 110, the CA-91, 210, 60, and areas like the Orange Crush are not nice places to want to start your driving career.  Heaven forbid that Nick will be soon and that I’ve had about four years of experience and it still freaks me out at some points.  But here we are saying that you’re old enough to get behind the wheel of a few tons of steel, head out on the open roads, yet we are not going to let you vote or smoke yet?  According to the CDC on the website Car-Accidents.com 36% of all deaths in the age group of 16 to 20 come from driving.

So we are going to let this age group kill themselves 36% of the time from driving, but we wont let them vote of smoke?  All but three states according to Wikipedia you have to be 18 in order purchase tobacco products.  The three exceptions being Utah, Alabama, and New Jersey, where you have to be 19.  But now here is the really stupid part: Most countries do not have a minimum age to be able to smoke in public.  So while you could be arrested for supplying a 15yo with his cigarettes, it’s not illegal for the 15yo to smoke them.  So here there really is NO age of consent to smoke.  We are saying it is totally fine for them to make up their own mind to smoke or not, we are just making illegal to supply them with the means.

Right now I can see keeping the voting age at 18, but just from my experience there are a lot of younger people who are very knowledgeable about what is going on in their town, city, state, and the Federal government.  Sure I do believe that if we were to open voting to 16yo’s that they would just pick a box without to much consideration.  But if a kid can join the military early with parental consent, how about some sort of constitutional test that a minor can take to earn early voting rights?

Now the drinking age is actually one that I think should be raised!  25 maybe?  Everyone is always worried that young people like ourselves can’t make informed decisions, and I’ve seen that just get worse when people drink.  People drink, they get into car accidents, they get too drunk, and like the girl in the news the other day who was 21, tried to walk home in shorts and a tank top, in below zero weather, and froze to death a few blocks away.  You become aggressive and start fights that you regret later.  And don’t get me going on the few frat parties that I’ve been to.  None of this is responsible drinking.  Personally I think it would help to lower the amount of underage drinking.  21 and 22yo people DO hang around with underage people, they are still part of their social group.  I’m 20 and I have friends that are 14 the youngest I can name off the top of my head to about 25.  So when I turn 21 and am able to have drinks in my apartment whats not to say that if a younger friend were to come over over and ask for a drink that I might allow him to have one?  Anyone who knows me of course knows that is not going to remotely happen.  But it doesn’t mean that someone else my age who has younger friends wont.  But the probability of a 25yo having friend to hang out with and supply drinks is probably lower.  Hopefully you can see where I’m going there.  But what is also strange here is that it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of alcohol, but it’s not illegal to be in possession of tobacco.  Seems to me that if it is illegal for someone to purchase something then it should be illegal for them to possess it too.

Take for instance the California law on the possession of firearms.  California prohibits the purchase to anyone under the age of 21.  HOWEVER, a minor can possess one where the parent or guardian has consented, and is present.  But there is no minimum age to possess a rifle or shotgun.  So why not let a minor smoke with the consent and presence of his parents?  Why not let let kids drink with the consent and presence of their parents.  At least with the consent and presence of the parents there would be that additional time to teach about the effects of smoking and drinking.  And while we are at it how about sex with minors being OK as long as you have consent from your parents?  I mean, come on!

And then the biggest one, having sex.  This has to be one of the most messed up age of consent laws that are out there.  Though I can understand their purpose, they way they are written sometimes makes you want to pull your hair out.  Take a look at this CHART and tell me you don’t agree.   The age of Consent in the United States is all over the place.  I was getting a headache just trying to read that list, and it seemed like someone cut and pasted the information from a law book.  But here are some of the one that really stood out out to me:

• Delaware – Can have sex with 16 and 17yo as long as you’re under 30
• Florida – Can have sex with 17 and 17yo as long as you’re under 23
• Maine – Can has sex at 14  as long as your partner isn’t over 5 years older
• Minnesota – Can has sex at 13 as long as your partner isn’t over 4 years older
• Ohio – Can have sex at 13 as long as your partner isn’t over 18
• Oregon – Can have sex at 12 as long as your partner isn’t over 3 years older
• Washington – Can has sex at 12 as long as your partner isn’t over 2 years older

Now remember I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is just how I interpreted what I read. I am not in the least bit advocating that everyone start going to have sex with minors.  But here is where I think the laws are dumb.  Some states are giving consent to very young minors, while others don’t.  If this is the “United” states, then crap like this should be consistent over ALL the states.  Basically what all this is saying is that kids can consent to have sex with other kids, but they can’t consent to sex with adults.  And I’ll have to do a Rant on that in the future, but kids are not stupid!!  They want to learn about sex, they want to learn about their sexuality, but the only people we are saying that they can do that with are other inexperienced, unknowledgeable, kids. And that, in my eyes, is stupid.

Yes, there are bad people out there that we want to protect the kids from.  Believe me, in my old line of work, I ran into a few like that.  But not everyone out there who would enjoy a relationship with a younger person is not a rapist.  They are not out to “abuse” minors.  And most of the time society even gets they name of what they are trying to accuse people of wrong.  Having a sexual relationship with a 14yo is NOT pedophilia.  That is when you’re attracted to pre-pubescent boys generally 11 and under.  The term hebephilia is used for those attracted to the early adolescents of 11 to 14 generally, and the last one is ephebophilia who are attracted to late adolescents of 15 and up.  So even society can’t get their terms straight when making adults look evil.

Do I believe that there can be healthy sexual relations between and older person and a younger person?  Yes.  Do I believe that there are a bunch of asses out there that DO take advantage of younger people? Absolutely!  And I’ll probably end up doing a Rant on just this subject in the near future, but in just like anything else, it is the few bad people out there that make it hard for the rest of us who are trying to do good.  A few bombers and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport, a few religious zealots and everyone thinks EVERY Muslim is out to get them, a few illegal immigrants and everyone wants to ship the entire population out.  And the news and the internet make the issue seem 10 times worse than it is.

OK, so that was a little long winded.  But as you can see the age of consent is like a jig-saw puzzle.  First you have to figure out what you’re doing, then you have to read your state laws to find out if what you want to do is illegal or not.  Last I checked not to many people have law libraries in their houses, and the last thing you want to do is to call up a lawyer and say “hey I’m 22 and I’m dating a 14yo. Is it OK for us to have sex?”.  Though if you want to keep your butt out of a sling, it’s probably a good idea to do.

Yes, I know I have a strange take on this subject, just like I do most everything that I Rant about.  But I never say that I’m right.  These are always just my opinions which are always open for debate.  Do not take this as Gospel.

Love to you all as always!

~Ryan

 

The GOP Debates….and Debates in General

So as of this writing I have not yet watched the 3rd GOP debate that was on 10/28/15, but I have it queued up to watch as soon as I get this Rant done. But there has been so much writing about it in the news I figured that I could pull off this Rant without actually watching it yet.

Let me first ask you: Do the debates in general even make sense to have? Period?  Think about this:  The candidates on the GOP side want to limit the time of the debate to two hours.  TWO F***ING HOURS!!  Two hours to debate critically the issues of the nation and the world between 14 candidates. Let’s do that math on that one.  Two hours = 60 minutes.  Divide that by 14 candidates and you get a whopping 8.57 minutes for each of them to tell us how they are going to lead the country, and the world.  That is just nowhere near enough time for that!!!  Let’s not kid around.  And if each one of them gets one minute for opening and closing remarks (because they never stay within their guidelines) and leaves just 6.57 minutes to get to saving the country and the world.  Now I think that they are planning like 10 GOP debates so that is 65 minutes total debate time.  Fuck me, why watch?!  I’d rather listen to them on their stump speeches where they get more time to talk about what they are going to do, and then just compare that to the other candidate and then make up my mind on who to vote for.

Don’t get me wrong though.  I am not in the least bit going to vote for any of those monkeys on the GOP side.  But you know what?  They do have legit concerns that even I agree about after just READING about the mess of the CNBC one that I’m about to watch.

I think that a candidate should have as much time as he or she needs to answer the question that was asked, or to rebut a comment from another that was specifically addressed or mentioned them.  Not just a 30 second bit.  Is that going to draw out the time that the debate takes?  You betcha!!  But it would give move validity to their answers and really let the voters know what they are thinking.

But here is something that I think should happen with the debates.  You can’t give the candidates questions that they are prepared to answer.  You might have just as well have them write a speech for that.  So I think that the GOP debates should be moderated by the liberals, and the Democrats moderated by the conservatives.  Just imagine what kind of questions and answers you would get!  I also think that there should be no rules in the debates.  No questions or topics that would be off limits.  And by having the other party moderate the debate you wouldn’t get that sense that the candidates own the debate and they are dictating to the moderators what questions get to be asked.  Just imagine a Democrat asking what their opinion on marriage equality, or a woman’s right to choose?  Or a Republican asking the Democrats about cutting back on defense spending limiting the size of government?  Don’t those seem like they would be better debate questions?

I would love to put all 14 of them in a room together at 9am, and then have them debate the issues all freaking day.  No holds barred style.  Let them answer the questions being asked.  Let them yell at there opponents.  We are talking about the fate of our country, and the leader of the free world.  And if the GOP gets their way it’s either going to be Trump and his casino empire, an ex-neurosurgeon, or an HP executive.  Do you really want to let these guys have their finger on the nuclear trigger, setting foreign policy, rolling back progressive reforms, without really knowing who they are and what they are really about?

This 2016 election is all about a change in leadership style.  Nobody right now is leaning toward anyone that has been a life long politician with the exception of Hillary Clinton. She is the only top tier establishment candidate that right now has a viable chance at winning.  We have gotten to know her through being First Lady, New York state Senator, and then Secretary of State.  But everyone else is like “who are these guys”?

I certainly don’t want to vote for a republican.  But I would like them to have a fair debate to get to know them, what they are like, what their policies would be, because then, Hell, you never know.  The place just might freeze!!  But all I see right now is just mess, a bunch of complainers who are acting more like school children than Presidential candidates, and I wouldn’t vote for any of them.  I don’t know how the networks are going to solve this issue.  At least on the Democrat side there is only four of them.  That is a ton more manageable.  In the mean time I just recommend taking the debates with a grain of salt and listening to them on their stump speeches and then comparing what you hear to make the best decision.

All I know is that we’re screwed if one of the GOP gets elected.  And I can’t run for another 15 years.  Gives me great time to built up my base!  Team Striker 2032!! Your first out as gay, ex-hustler, GED earning, President!  Imagine that!?

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Changing Democracy

Supreme Court Case Could Upend the Way Democracy Works

This is an article that was posted to the Huffington Post on 10/08/15.  And wow, could this one be a doozy!!  The question that the law suit of Evenwel v. Abbott is asking is whether or not to draw legislative districts by the number of the total population or by the number of eligible voters.  In the United State every ten years is the National Census which afterwards the new districts are drawn to compensate for the increase or decrease in an areas population.  So to me what these idiots are asking is who gets representation in congress.  It is only registered voters?  Or is it the entire population, which would include childern, inmates, former felons, and possibly illegal immigrants?

The first line of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution; Section Two reads: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”  Now to me that means EVERYONE!  That means from newborn babies all the way up the almost deceased.  Everyone living at the time of the census deserves representation, not just registered voters.

If we say that only registered voters get representation then how are underage, the inmates, and former felons supposed to fight for their rights?  Are we then saying they have no rights?  That is ridiculous.  Think of it this way.  What if a part of a city has 100,000 in total population, but only 20,000 of them are registered voters.  Are we really going to tell the other 80,000 that they have no representation because they are either to young, ineligible, or chose not to register?

Yea, I get that it sucks that the U.S. has such a low registered voters and voter turn out yet 100% of the people bitch about the government.  according to Statisticbrain there are 218,959,000 eligible voters yet only 146,311,000 are registered.  That is only 66%.  And only 57.5% of Americans voted in the 2012 Presidential election.  Yet the other 42.5% don’t stop bitching about the way the government is going.  That is always my first question when I start an argument with someone about politics.  Did you vote?  If they say no, then I end it right there.  You want to bitch, go vote!!

And though I really hate it, those that choose not to register, or worse yet register but not vote, do deserve their representation in Congress.  The Constitution guarantees that right. And what the article is saying is that if they lawsuit goes then it would shift the power away from the cities which have more immigrants, children, and Democrats to the rural areas which tend to be older, white, and Republican.  So you can see what this really is.  It is an attempt by the Republicans to shift even more power their way and to stop the progressive nature of the United States.

Are you fucking kidding me!!??  The Republican party can’t get their shit together to elect a Speaker of the House, have the worst possible candidates for President, and we want to consider something that would give them even more power?  How fucked up are we becoming?

And with this law instead of the census they want to use a survey that asks just a random amount of people, and not everyone to determine how these lines are going to be drawn.  Please read the full article to get more info on that as I wont do explaining it any justice compared to the author of the article.

But I can see that if this law passes, combined with the horrendous Citizens United that we might as well kiss democracy good-bye.  At that point in time it will be in the hands of the 1% rich, white, Republicans who want to take the country back to the 1800s.  There is no way that I want any of these CEO’s or Ex-surgeons running the country.  I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I am leaning more towards Bernie Sanders, but I still haven’t given up on Hillary Clinton.  I know that she is part of the government establishment, but I do think that it is time for woman to be President.  But fuck no, not Fiorina.  And no fucking way to I want Trump to have his fingers on the nuclear codes.  And even if I had been remotely thinking about Carson he lost all hope when he suspended his campaign to go on a book tour.  If you want to be President, then act like it.  You don’t see Obama going on book tours as President.  That kind of crap can wait until you are out of office.

So I know that it is too late to get on the email to your Congressman about this since its in the hands of the Court right now.  But heaven fucking forbid that it gets passed, you had better have them on your email contacts to start up a Constitutional Amendment to really define who gets representation in this country.  Too many people are about to be left in the cold.

OK, so Love to you all!!

~Ryan

P.S. – Sorry that I haven’t posted a Rant in quite a while.  It has been a busy month here in sunny Southern California.  No the Great Earthquake has not struck yet, so we are still around.  Just with moving down the street to this absolutely great apartment, my work, Nick’s work, and his school, and my closing in on the GED, it has been a busy month.  But things should be calming down around here now to get back on the schedule.  Thanks all for being patient.  And as always comments and debate are always welcome!!

Morals – Who Says Mine Are Wrong?

So this is a “suggested” Rant by one of my followers on Tumblr.  He suggested that I do one on morals.  Since today there is a lot of activity surrounding this.  There is the war going on in Syria, the Presidential election season here in the U.S., for a couple of examples.  One way or another we all try to push our own morals onto everyone around us.

What are “morals”?  According to Dictionary.com “morals” are: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conductor the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.  2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.  3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.  5.

conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, relating to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.

The subject came up because of the County Clerk in Kentucky, U.S. who just recently was found in contempt of court and was ordered to jail.  Her crime?  She withheld same sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality.  The reason?  To her, it is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to get married.  It is her religious belief that made her not go against her morals, and went to jail instead.  Now she has two choices to get out of jail.  #1 is that she can start to issue the licenses in accordance with the Supreme Court, or #2 she can resign.  I’m hoping that she takes option #1, but if she is willing to go to jail for her morals I’m thinking it will be #2 in the end.

What are some of my morals that I have?  I think it is morally wrong to have the death penalty.  Sure, I get that who ever is on Death Row is there because they committed murder on someone else.  But the reason I am morally against it is, now this is going to sound really stupid coming from me for those that know me, is the Bible says “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.  I’m not a big firm believer in the Bible, but this is one thing that I think it got right.  And “Thou Shalt Not Kill” includes anybody.  For any reason.  Including the punishment of murder.  Another moral that I have is that I am against slavery.  And no I’m not talking about the U.S. Civil War type of slavery.  I am talking about any type of slavery where there are people that are being held to do things that are against their own wishes and they have no control over it.  That would include pimps and their prostitutes, warlords taking people and forcing them to fight or be human bombs.  It would be the coyotes of Mexico, or asian countries, who will take people across the border, but them make them work for them to pay off the debt.  That is the type of slavery that I am morally against.

I think that morals are things that get deeply ingrained into our culture from hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years ago too.  Take the whole “one man, one woman” marriage thing for example again.  We here in the U.S. see it as morally wrong to have more than one wife, or husband. Yes, I’m talking about polygamy.  But when you look at it, is there anything that is humanly wrong with it?  I don’t think so.  Is it possible for one man, or one woman, to be married to several people of the opposite sex and have everything work out fine?  I’m sure there is.  Just look at the compounds that you see out in Utah with that radical wing of the Latter Day Saints church.  One man being married to several women seems to be working out there.  Of course what got that guy in trouble, and other like him, is that he started to marry the underage girls, and having sex with them.  Whow, stop your horses right there!

Morals may be a great thing to follow, but unfortunately, laws still trump morals.  Going back to our Country Clerk, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is now the law of the land.  If your morals are going to interfere with the performance of your job, then you’re going to need to find a new job.  With the guys out in Utah who’s morals say for them it is OK to marry someone who is underage, laws trump again.  You may be able to love them as your wife, but you’re going to have to hold off on the sexual relations and the marriage until they turn 18.

And when you look at the world view of morals, I think you’ll be like me and realize that it is morals that have been behind pretty much every war there has ever been.  Think about this:  A country is doing something that we here in the West thing is morally wrong.  So what do we do about it?  We would probably hit them with some sort of sanction to get them to follow what we think is right.  But they may have been doing there there for thousands of years.  How about the story, and sorry I don’t have the link for this one, recently about the woman who was stoned to death for having an adulterous affair?  If I remember right it was a Middle Eastern country that this happened in where their morals about adultery are way more extreme than they are here in the U.S.  Here if you have an adulterous affair and get caught, the worst that happens is you get slapped with divorce papers, and you end up paying alimony and child support.  The militaries morals about adultery are a bit more severe where you can still go to jail if caught there because of the impact it can have on the job.  But in the Middle East where they still take adultery very seriously, you can be put to death.

So morals are what we as individuals think is right and wrong.  And every person, every country, every region, is going to have different morals.  What I think is morally right, may totally offend you.  And what you think is morally right may totally offend me.  But the trick is to get along, and try to understand everyone’s morals before just going off on the deep end over them.  But if the law counters what your morals are, then you are just going to have to work to be sure your morals don’t cross the line, because unfortunately the laws are set by the majority.  And if enough people with your same morals comes into the majority, then we can change the laws in favor of your morals.  Do I hold anything against the County Clerk for believing in her morals and standing up for them?  Absolutely not.  This is a great country where you can stand up to the laws in a civil defiance like hers.  The only thing she did wrong was because she is an elected civil servant who is supposed to adhere to the laws of land, defied them.  For that, you are going to get punished.  Hopefully she doesn’t spend to much time in jail.  Honestly, I haven’t checked in the last few days, hopefully she is out even as I write this.

This was kind of a long winded Rant, but I hope I got my point across.  Thank you for the suggestion for the Rant.  If you have something you would like to here my opinion on, then just send me an Ask, or a Fan Mail.

Love to you all as always!

~Ryan

Innocent Until Proven Guilty….Maybe Should be Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Teen Boy Arrested After 8-year-old California Girl Found Dead in Recycling Bin

After watching a number of crime TV shows, and reading books, and news articles, and even laws, I have always believed that we lived in a country where you were innocent of a crime until proven guilty by a court of law.  After reading this article, and then thinking about all those TV shows, and movies that I’ve watched, I’ve had to reconsider that this is not an innocent until proven guilty country.  We are guilty until proven innocent.

In the article it says that a 15 year old boy was arrested “on suspicion” of murder.  I don’t think that anyone should be able to be arrested on “suspicion” of anything.  Hell then I could be arrested on “suspicion” that I stole clothing from the store I work at.  It would seem to me that in order to be arrested for something, there would have to be clear, actionable evidence that I actually did something.  Everyone who reads this I could suspect of something.  May or may not be true, but I could certainly suspect it.

Now the reason the boy was arrested is even more stupid.  It says he was arrested because the boy “was in the general proximity” of the recycling bin and may have been watching police search it.  That is from the Santa Cruz police Chief Kevin Vogel.  So does that mean that I could be arrested for being in the proximity of a dead body while I watch the police search?  You have no evidence one way or the other that I did something.  Now if the police had said something like “we found the boys fresh fingerprints on the body” or “we found the murder weapon and it belonged to the boy” then I would be OK with possibly arresting him.  But still, just owning the weapon is not evidence that the boy did anything.  The article does say that the police are gathering evidence from the apartment where the boy lives.

Now I do truly hope that the police find the person who killed the girl and that person is brought to court.  But here is a few disturbing things not just about this case, but in all cases everywhere.  First off, if the boy is eventually charged with the girls death, more than likely the prosecutor is going to try to have the boy tried as an adult.  I absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, disagree with anybody under the age of 18 being tried as an adult.  Why?  Because by definition, and legal president, HE IS NOT AN ADULT!!  From what I can gather, legally there are three steps to becoming an adult.  First is when you turn 16 and you get to drive.  Second is when you turn 18 and get to vote, join the military, smoke, sign legal contracts, etc.  And the third step is when you turn 21 and get to drink.  Bar hopping on me on July 12, 2016!!  So if someone is 15 years old and not considered an adult by any of these standards, how in the world is it possible to be tried as an adult?  If you are going to try someone as an adult, then you better let them drive, smoke, and drink.  People are always saying that kids are young and they don’t know what they are doing, or whats best for them.  Yet the moment they take a violent action, Heaven Forbid that they knew that was wrong, and illegal, and should be punished to the extent of the law for it.

Then there is the part that really sets me off.  Innocent until proven guilty, right?  Then how can we hold someone in jail before their trial if they have not been convicted of a crime yet?  What if that person really IS innocent and we held them in jail for a year or two while the police and the prosecutor “build a case”.  How is that even remotely fair?  I get that we want to take dangerous criminals off the street, and I want them gone just as badly as anyone else.  But we shouldn’t do so in a way that is against what we all claim.  Nobody should be held in jail while a case is being built, they are still innocent at that time.  When the jury of a trial comes back with a conviction, then you can take someone to jail.

But I know what a lot of people are going to say:  What if he goes out and kills again?  What if he goes out and commits another crime?  Or worst of all, what if he fleas because he knows he is guilty?  Unfortunately, these are things that we can’t control.  But locking up an innocent person, or one who is still innocent in the eyes of the law is just wrong.

And even after a person has served their time, are they not supposed to have “served their time”, “paid their penalty”?  They if so, why can’t a convicted person vote?  Why does someone who was convicted of rape have to register as a sex offender?  Once a person completes their jail time, they are not restored to full citizenship and that is wrong.  We are sentencing these people for life.  Convicted felons lose the right to vote, to hold public office, to bear arms, and to international travel.

If a person cannot vote for who is to govern them, then they shouldn’t be held to any laws.  If a person is a convicted felon that shouldn’t mean he can’t vote for who will govern him.  I realize that when a person is convicted they lose a certain amount of trust, but how is one supposed to gain that trust back?  If a person life gets changed because of a felony, that person just might end up being a great leader.  And if anyone has a clear motive to want to protect themselves from the public, it would be felons.  Just what do you think would happen if Bernie Madoff moved in next door?  Lot’s of pissed off people at him.  Don’t you think he has the right to defend himself?  And then we are trapping them here in the country that convicted.  Wouldn’t you want to move somewhere else as well?

The best that I can hope for is that you see where I’m coming from.  As always I’m open to debate.  It’s just my point of view.  And from where I’m standing the view is pretty obscene.

Love to you all as always!

~Ryan

7,193 Bills Introduced to Congress

Yesterday I was reading an article about how there was a bill in Congress about the height restriction of buildings in Washington, D.C.  I know that this is probably an important issue for the city, but if you know why they have the height restriction it makes sense.  It’s so you can see the monuments from all over without a building in the way.  But it made me think of what other stupid bills are in congress that they are wasting time over rather than doing some actual important stuff.  (And even when they try that, they get nowhere, because apparently the word compromise is not in the congressional vocabulary.

So here are a few bills that I found on GovTrack that kinda piss me off that they are even there:

HR2066 Pets on Trains Act of 2013: To require Amtrak to propose a pet policy that allows passengers to transport domesticated cats and dogs on certain Amtrak trains, and for other purposes. [Hopefully they already allow service dogs, that’s just standard.  But I have traveled by train a few times, I don’t want it to smell like dog.  And what if I’m allergic to animal hair?  I don’t think Amtrak needs help with this one.]

HR2548 Electrify Africa Act of 2013: To establish a comprehensive United States government policy to assist countries in sub-Saharan Africa to develop an appropriate mix of power solutions for more broadly distributed electricity access in order to support poverty alleviation and drive economic growth, and for other purposes. [How about we work on solving the U.S. power problem before we go helping others.  Fix our home first, then we can help the neighbors.]

HR3086 Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act: Permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. [Sorry, I may not like taxes as much as the next person, but I do think that there ought to be tax on the purchase of things on the internet either from the state of destination, or the state shipped from.]

S124 No Budget, No Pay Act: A bill to provide that Members of Congress may not receive pay after October 1 of any fiscal year in which Congress has not approved a concurrent resolution on the budget and passed the regular appropriations bills. [Fuck Me, if Congress can’t pass a budget on time, hell yea they shouldn’t get paid.  But how likely is Congress going to approve their own pay cut? Fat chance on that one.  And they shouldn’t just pass a budge, it should be balanced.  If I can’t bounce checks, then they shouldn’t either.]

OK so there is my little Congressional Rant for tonight.  Not saying that there aren’t good bills waiting to be passed in Congress.  There have only been 100 passed bills in this session.  I’d say that’s a little unproductive.  I wish I knew a way to make it easier.  Yes there are going to be Democrats and Republicans, and even a few Independents.  But they all need to work together.  Let’s get shit done, alright!!

[Originally Posted 4/30/14]

Adoption

To all my under 18 followers: Be thankful you live in a nice house, have three meals a day, a soft bed to sleep in, and a hot shower to clean yourself up in. To 1.2Million kids, this is a dream. And at a time, Nick and I were part of that 1.2Million.

There are many reasons why kids are homeless. It can be like me, I left foster care cause I hated moving from house to house. It can be like Nick, he was kicked out of his house when his parents found out he was gay. It can simply be that their parents lost their jobs. And the worst one of all, that they had a great home and got fed up with their parents and they ran away. For those that ran away from home, I always try to get them to go back. It may suck to live by the rules of parents, but hey, its only till your 18, then you can get out on your own. If you left, by choice, the stuff in my first paragraph, you will get NO sympathy from me because you can, and should, go back at any time.

The part of adoption that I don’t like is all the paperwork and interviews that one has to go though in order to adopt a kid. I looked into it a little cause at one time I was thinking about trying to adopt Nick. But looked like more of a pain in the ass than it was worth. Plus I kinda have plan on marrying him at some point. Kinda hard to marry your adopted son right? lol.

But the adoptive service doesn’t look at all the kids that are homeless. I think we have a ton of numbers, but the homeless kids are still in the Forgotten Realm. Whats to say that someone wants to adopt and cant get through the paperwork. What about going to find a homeless kid and give him a chance? No kidding a kid would be skeptical. If I was still on the street and someone came up to me and offered me a place to live I would have wondered what the catch was. Would I end up being somebody’s slave, or worse yet just dead?

I guess what I am trying to get at here, is that the adoption process I think needs to ease up to qualify more people to be adoptive parents, and to have the system look at the homeless kids as possibles for adoption. Just because we live on the streets does not make us bad kids. Most of the kids that I knew were just trying to get by day to day, and did what they did to do that. The kids I knew would have made great sons and daughters.

[Originally posted 4/6/14]

Election Contributions

So read this article on CNN today: Justices strike down political donor limits, and it really got me pumping. First off, I’m glad I get to vote finally! Yippy about turning 18. And if you know me from the previous blog, you know that I’m a little politically minded. I think more guys my age and younger should be. We are going to be running the country some day. Ryan Striker for President anyone?

And this ruling is just stupid!! They really didn’t strike down the overall total that you can donate to ONE candidate, but the struck down the total that you can donate to ALL candidates. So the way that I read the article is that previously you could only give about $5200 per election cycle. But that went to one candidate. So now you can give the max to as many candidates as you want? Is that crazy or what?

I don’t think that you should be able to donate to anyone who is not in your city, district, or state. I mean, why would I was someone in Colorado influencing the voting in Florida? You should let the people of the district that is voting make up their minds about who they should vote about.

And these big Super PAC people is just nuts!! If I’m going to donate to a candidate, I’m going to donate directly to them. (Please Hillary announce, so I can send you $10!!)

And corporations shouldn’t be able to donate AT ALL! They are NOT people!! Corporations cant vote, so that shouldn’t be able to donate and influence elections. What Washington DC is doing to the election system, and the country in general, I almost want to move just a tad further north across the St. Lawrence.

I was one that was really hoping for the Hope & Change to continue in 2012. So far, I think its been a disappointment. But what the hell was I expecting, right? It’s politics.

I’m going to eat some dinner, post a few pics that I like that I found today, and I have a 2nd Rant to post. It’s been one of those days, lol.

[Originally Posted 4/2/14]