I know you might not realize this, but I don't like politics much. In fact, I might even hate politics. I don't want to ever talk about politics, but sometimes it's necessary.
This week, the Senate Judicial Committee held hearings for the confirmation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The hearings were a ridiculous waste of time. I've been listening to clips all week. It was as if the senators didn't really have anything to ask the judge, but they felt that they had to fill some time with questions. They asked some of the stupidest questions I've ever heard.
Anyway, in honor of politicians being idiots most of the time, I've decided to raise my voice on three issues that I think need to be dealt with. I have some questions, and also some opinions. I have lots of opinions.
Issue 1: Hate crimes legislation
So this week Congress dug up the old hate crimes bill. Originally designed with racial minorities in mind, this bill has now become a rallying point for the LGBT community and they've wanted in on it for years. Their sample case has been the murder of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was tortured and killed several years ago because of his sexual orientation.
Now here's the thing: hate crimes legislation only qualifies for violent acts.
That's right. Only crimes which are already criminal acts can be classed as hate crimes.
Congress now wants to change the hate crimes law so that it includes "crimes committed on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity". There are 2 major problems with this that I can see:
First, I don't think we realize how many crimes this would encompass. Under this new definition, every single rape, sexual assault, and spousal abuse case would have to be considered a hate crime. But is this going to happen? Probably not.
Second, hate crime legislation is inherently flawed in that it judges people for their motives, and this isn't the kind of country where those things are done. See, when someone is convicted of a hate crime, it's not the act of violence but rather the reason that the person committed the crime that is being condemned. Imagine, if you will, that we created something called "anger legislation" and criminalized acts that were committed in anger. Now say a man beats his wife. If he beat her because he was angry at her, he would fall under this new "anger legislation" and get extra years in prison. But if he beat her because he was depressed and frustrated from having just lost his job, then he would be immune from the anger legislation. How is this justice?
So here's the bottom line: we don't need hate crimes laws. Hate crimes are ALREADY crimes! Malicious intent is already a felony! We don't need more laws cluttering up our legal system. Just prosecute people for what they DO, not what they THINK!!!!
Issue 2: Sex Offender Maps
This issue is a few years old now, but it needs to be talked about. It's this idea of providing the addresses of sex offenders as public information online or wherever. I hate this idea, because it goes against the very grain of what the United States is about. The reason it's a dangerous practice is that it's so disgustingly unjust.
Sex crimes are rather nebulously defined, ranging all the way from urinating in public to child pornography. But the Sex Offender Maps don't differentiate. They don't tell you what the person did, just where they live.
On the other hand, you could have an axe murderer living next door and you'd never know it.
Sex offenders who have been declared rehabilitated should never be listed. Nor should one-time offenders. ONLY repeat offenders should have their addresses given to the general public, if we're going to be continuing this practice.
And if we do continue it, then we need to include ALL felonies on our lists.
But we should stop this practice. It implies a distrust in our legal system and, quite frankly, it's unconstitutional. The US Constitution promises us due process of law, no cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from double jeopardy. When we list sex offenders' addresses, we are continually punishing them for their crimes. Crimes, I might add, for which they have already served time and fulfilled their sentence.
In our pledge of allegiance, we proclaim "liberty and justice for all". For rehabilitated sex offenders, there is no such thing.
Issue 3: Teachers, Unions, and Merit Pay
Now, teachers are grossly underpaid. For a society that values education as much as we say we do, we pay our teachers close to nothing.
Because they were being abused in their jobs, teachers joined unions. Unions were very useful at the turn of the 20th century when they were established to protect workers from being victimized by their bosses, but they've somewhat lost their lustre. They are becoming dangerous.
President Obama had the audacity to suggest more than once that teachers should be paid based on performance (what he calls "merit pay"). The teachers' unions almost violently revolted against this. They called it "union-busting" and said they'd never put up with the idea of merit pay.
Do you know what this means?
It means that these teachers like their unions more than they like teaching!!!!!
I know, shocking, right?
They would rather stick with the unions which pay them for years of experience than actually try to be better teachers.
Let's apply this to other jobs. ALL other jobs. In ANY occupation, you are paid and/or promoted based on your performance. How good are you at your job? If you're the best in the industry, then you're probably the best-paid as well. It even works for politicians. If the people don't like they way a politican votes, they won't re-elect him. He loses his job.
Shouldn't it be the same with teachers? Shouldn't the people who mold our children be paid according to how well they do so?
Now, of course we're not going to base teacher pay solely on test results-- I think we learned our lesson about that from No Child Left Behind. However, we can establish a set of criteria-- say level of student improvement in certain areas-- by which we can judge how well our teachers are doing.
It's for the kids.
