One thing I've noticed as the father of a girl is how pathologically fearful most fathers appear with regard to their daughter's sexuality. They want to hide it, defend it, squelch it. They wrongly center themselves as the guardians of something that does not belong to them, something they can only guide passively if at all.
It seems obvious to many of us, but some people still cling to the belief that they can control their child's sexual behavior. We can influence it, certainly, and we are all encouraged to do so, but the facts are that our daughters are having sex whether we like it or not, and all we can do is make sure they're taken care of properly.
Recently, Plan B was approved for...well, you can read the link. Basically, 17-year olds can get it now.
This is a good thing. Why?
According to the Guttmacher Institute:
•Most young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but do not marry until their middle or late 20s. This means that young adults are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.
•The proportion of teens who had ever had sex declined from 49% to 46% among females and from 55% to 46% among males between 1995 and 2002. [this is still around half]
•A sexually active teen who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.
•One in five teens whose parents do not know they obtain contraceptive services would continue to have sex but would either rely on withdrawal or not use any contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified of their visit.
•Eighty-two percent of teen pregnancies are unplanned; they account for about one in five of all unintended pregnancies annually.
•Teen mothers are now more likely than in the past to complete high school or obtain a GED, but they are still less likely than women who delay childbearing to go on to college.
•The reasons teens give most frequently for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child.
The points were cherry-picked to show that 1) our daughters are quite likely to have sex while still teenagers, 2) they are highly likely to become pregnant if not allowed access to some form of contraception, 3) if they are denied access they're likely to continue their activity unprotected, 4) teen mothers are, overall, less educated than their adult counterparts, and 5) they KNOW pregnancy at their age is a bad idea.
Even for those of us with good father-daughter relationships, our girls are not going to tell us everything. If it's hard for you to talk to her about sex, imagine how hard it is for her to do the same with you. Then imagine that she's gone and had sex despite all your carrying on about morality and responsibility and how likely does it become that she'll even consider asking you for help if she had unprotected sex or suspects she could be pregnant?
I'm going to guess that the chance is low.
The discrete availability of this pill to 17-year old girls won't help the STI front, but it may just save a few of them a lifetime of condemnation, lost opportunities, and unwanted children.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
I Live!!
Sorta.
I'm not sure why I spend so much time between posts, I'm really not. But sometimes something happens that flips my switch in a way that affects me concretely rather than abstractly. That's what happened with this article:
Ars Technica on Pirates and the Music Industry
I don't have a lot more to say but: the BI Norwegian School of Management is right. No amount of denial on the part of the industry will change that.
I totally understand the need to protect copyright. As a person with the stated goal of producing marketable intellectual property and as a person married to someone producing marketable intellectual property, I don't want theft any more than anyone else. So where do I find the happy middle ground, where the music industry adopts a healthy and intelligent business model appropriate to the information age and where people share and propogate but don't steal?
I'm gonna have to think on that.
I'm not sure why I spend so much time between posts, I'm really not. But sometimes something happens that flips my switch in a way that affects me concretely rather than abstractly. That's what happened with this article:
Ars Technica on Pirates and the Music Industry
I don't have a lot more to say but: the BI Norwegian School of Management is right. No amount of denial on the part of the industry will change that.
I totally understand the need to protect copyright. As a person with the stated goal of producing marketable intellectual property and as a person married to someone producing marketable intellectual property, I don't want theft any more than anyone else. So where do I find the happy middle ground, where the music industry adopts a healthy and intelligent business model appropriate to the information age and where people share and propogate but don't steal?
I'm gonna have to think on that.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Authorspot - Neil Gaiman
In my ever-expanding quest to figure out who and what I am, what makes me tick, and from whence my psychoses derive, I've decided to share with you writers that I enjoy.
Perhaps best known for his work on the Sandman, Gaiman first struck a chord with me when I picked up Neverwhere on a lark. It was dark, fantastic, and quirky in all the right ways. I soon discovered Stardust which was similar, but far less dark. Still, I never imagined it as a film.
I even bought my youngest son his children's book, The Day I swapped my Dad for Two Goldfish.
But it was Coraline that really cemented him as a writer I'll always enjoy reading. It recaptured much of what drew me in with Neverwhere while also being a fantastic ghost story.
I love ghost stories and one of these days I'll have to recommend M.R. James.
At any rate if you haven't already, check out:
As with most authors of note, this is far from a definitive selection of recommendations, only what has spoken most directly to me, and taken from the list of what I've actually read. Have at it!
Perhaps best known for his work on the Sandman, Gaiman first struck a chord with me when I picked up Neverwhere on a lark. It was dark, fantastic, and quirky in all the right ways. I soon discovered Stardust which was similar, but far less dark. Still, I never imagined it as a film.
I even bought my youngest son his children's book, The Day I swapped my Dad for Two Goldfish.
But it was Coraline that really cemented him as a writer I'll always enjoy reading. It recaptured much of what drew me in with Neverwhere while also being a fantastic ghost story.
I love ghost stories and one of these days I'll have to recommend M.R. James.
At any rate if you haven't already, check out:
As with most authors of note, this is far from a definitive selection of recommendations, only what has spoken most directly to me, and taken from the list of what I've actually read. Have at it!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Eye of Newt
Every day I get more and more confirmation that the conservative bloc of this country was worth leaving behind. Intolerance, defamation, and the neoconservative notion of democracy through violence are all values I am increasingly surprised to see persisting.
For whatever reason, it still surprises me to see this sort of thing given any sort of validity at all.
Seriously, how can anyone say this...
"Are (Democrats) really prepared to close the government in order to stop drilling?", Gingrich asked, "Because I think the country will find that to be a suicidal strategy."
...with a straight face?
It isn't the Democrats shutting the government down, it's Newt and his buddies shutting it down via coercive tactics not far removed from extortion, all because they aren't getting the meaningless vote they want.
According to this, there are approximately 18 billion barrels of oil currently inaccessible and offshore. Estimates further state that production wouldn't likely begin until 2017 and peak production wouldn't be reached until 2030. That peak would be roughly 200,000 barrels per day on top of what we are already producing.
Less than a 10% increase. That wouldn't even begin to offset the price increases we've witnessed over the last year, but it's the focal point of far too many talking heads.
Newt is willing to shut the government down over a feel-good measure and he has the nerve to blame the Democrats for it. Cute.
For whatever reason, it still surprises me to see this sort of thing given any sort of validity at all.
Seriously, how can anyone say this...
"Are (Democrats) really prepared to close the government in order to stop drilling?", Gingrich asked, "Because I think the country will find that to be a suicidal strategy."
...with a straight face?
It isn't the Democrats shutting the government down, it's Newt and his buddies shutting it down via coercive tactics not far removed from extortion, all because they aren't getting the meaningless vote they want.
According to this, there are approximately 18 billion barrels of oil currently inaccessible and offshore. Estimates further state that production wouldn't likely begin until 2017 and peak production wouldn't be reached until 2030. That peak would be roughly 200,000 barrels per day on top of what we are already producing.
Less than a 10% increase. That wouldn't even begin to offset the price increases we've witnessed over the last year, but it's the focal point of far too many talking heads.
Newt is willing to shut the government down over a feel-good measure and he has the nerve to blame the Democrats for it. Cute.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Canned Laughter
Ah, more Spammy goodness. From the label of a can of Spam I opened the other day:
"So. Now you know another of the many secrets of SPAM(r). This knowledge carries much responsibility. It gives you the power to feed yourself and others. You wield a delicious skill that has far-reaching consequences. Plese do not use it for evil."
I love these guys.
"So. Now you know another of the many secrets of SPAM(r). This knowledge carries much responsibility. It gives you the power to feed yourself and others. You wield a delicious skill that has far-reaching consequences. Plese do not use it for evil."
I love these guys.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
My Left Nut...
So...there's a book out called The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. If you want a more reputable link, look here.
While it isn't new, I just saw it and after seeing such titles as Liberal Fascism gracing the shelves of late, I figured I had to at least poke into one of these books to see what's going on.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book conveniently has an official webpage devoted to it, and on it are several convenient excerpts.
I will be quoting liberally (uh oh) from the provided excerpts in an attempt to figure out how anyone with an M.D. can conclude that a difference of opinion can be classified as a mental illness.
The first segment is from the preface and it begins promisingly. It is generally well-written and lays out some of the author's generalized credentials and attempts to establish his authority. Good.
Then it goes on to this jewel: "Although I have made strenuous efforts to follow where reason leads, I have not written this book out of intellectual interest alone. My intent has been more “generative” than that, to use one of Erik Erikson’s terms. It has, in fact, grown out of a deep concern for the future of ordered liberty."
So he makes a nod toward objective reasoning while also telling us he threw it out in favor of an agenda. Now, having an agenda isn't problematic at all. I generally prefer to know the author's and he has conveniently informed us what his is. Problematic is when that agenda is little more than confirmation bias wrapped in scholarship.
Well, he goes on to discuss the madness of Liberalism in quite a bit of rather dogmatic language. Clearly generalizing what he calls the liberal mind, he makes absolutist claims about what a liberal thinker does and does not believe, painting in stark shades of black and white, a misrepresentative picture of a large, vibrant, and diverse group of people. It is absolutism at its worst.
But the best part of all is this little gem:
"Like a child molester, the liberal politician grooms his constituents until their natural cautions against yielding power in exchange for favors dissolves in reassurance."
This passage is pure gold.
In it, he has carefully crafted the sentence for maximum buy-in from his target audience and maxiumum outrage from the left. You see, while he deftly avoids actually calling liberal politicians child-molesters and instead draws a mere parallel in strategy, the comparison is included to plant that subliminal seed that liberal politicians are as evil as child molesters and in the best case scenario, the reader should perhaps believe that they are.
He successfully calls liberal politicians child-molesters without actually doing so.
I salute you, Doctor Rossiter, bravo! For an encore, perhaps he could do like Jonah Goldberg and invoke what amounts to Godwin's Law to further stir up hysteria.
FSM knows we don't have enough of that running amok these days.
While it isn't new, I just saw it and after seeing such titles as Liberal Fascism gracing the shelves of late, I figured I had to at least poke into one of these books to see what's going on.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book conveniently has an official webpage devoted to it, and on it are several convenient excerpts.
I will be quoting liberally (uh oh) from the provided excerpts in an attempt to figure out how anyone with an M.D. can conclude that a difference of opinion can be classified as a mental illness.
The first segment is from the preface and it begins promisingly. It is generally well-written and lays out some of the author's generalized credentials and attempts to establish his authority. Good.
Then it goes on to this jewel: "Although I have made strenuous efforts to follow where reason leads, I have not written this book out of intellectual interest alone. My intent has been more “generative” than that, to use one of Erik Erikson’s terms. It has, in fact, grown out of a deep concern for the future of ordered liberty."
So he makes a nod toward objective reasoning while also telling us he threw it out in favor of an agenda. Now, having an agenda isn't problematic at all. I generally prefer to know the author's and he has conveniently informed us what his is. Problematic is when that agenda is little more than confirmation bias wrapped in scholarship.
Well, he goes on to discuss the madness of Liberalism in quite a bit of rather dogmatic language. Clearly generalizing what he calls the liberal mind, he makes absolutist claims about what a liberal thinker does and does not believe, painting in stark shades of black and white, a misrepresentative picture of a large, vibrant, and diverse group of people. It is absolutism at its worst.
But the best part of all is this little gem:
"Like a child molester, the liberal politician grooms his constituents until their natural cautions against yielding power in exchange for favors dissolves in reassurance."
This passage is pure gold.
In it, he has carefully crafted the sentence for maximum buy-in from his target audience and maxiumum outrage from the left. You see, while he deftly avoids actually calling liberal politicians child-molesters and instead draws a mere parallel in strategy, the comparison is included to plant that subliminal seed that liberal politicians are as evil as child molesters and in the best case scenario, the reader should perhaps believe that they are.
He successfully calls liberal politicians child-molesters without actually doing so.
I salute you, Doctor Rossiter, bravo! For an encore, perhaps he could do like Jonah Goldberg and invoke what amounts to Godwin's Law to further stir up hysteria.
FSM knows we don't have enough of that running amok these days.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Juno Reaction
Yes, that's a play on the band, referring to the movie. =P
So this movie is as they say, a runaway success. I went to see it with my wife the other day (saw Cloverfield the same day, yay!) and while it was even funnier than I expected, what surprised me was just how sophisticated and utterly non-judgmental the entire thing was.
Before we go on, there are spoilers in here.
Be warned.
Regardless, let me start with a reaction to the film. My wife teaches yoga and exercises with a friend down the street from where I live. They have an interesting friendship that allows them to be really irritated with each other regularly yet continue to be friends. That says a lot about its strength. So I wasn't surprised when she told me about a somewhat acrimonious exchange they had over the movie Juno, yet they still had a fine time together.
Her friend had a problem with Jason Bateman's character. He was a bad guy. She said he just needed to grow up and be the adult that his family needed. She even went so far as to assume that he somehow sabotaged his wife's earlier pregnancies. Where she found sympathy for Garner's character and her plight, she had only condemnation for Bateman's.
At first glance, it almost seems like she has a valid point. In the film he abandons his wife and nearly destroys her hopes of adopting a child all so he can go make music, the dream of probably every other teenager in America. Seems pretty straightforward in its implications, doesn't it?
But what she failed to understand are the things my wife tried to point out to her, to no avail. To paraphrase her position: No, he should have just grown up and dealt with what he'd been given no matter the cost. He should be what she wanted him to be, not what he wanted to be.
First, though, it's important to recognize a critical element of the film, one that seems overlooked by many. That element is its lack of judgment.
Juno is quite possibly the first teenage pregnancy film I've seen that can potentially appeal to anyone regardless of their politics. At no point does it dwell on implications of immorality, the gender divide, or responsibility. Certainly each is touched on but there is never any censure nor is there any promotion of politics, gender or otherwise.
The film is what it is, and it isn't trying to be a message about teenage pregnancy so much as it is...a love story.
You heard me, this movie is about our hearts. It's about how we see the world and interact with its absurdities and cope with situations that have gone beyond our control. It's about how we can love and hate all in the same breath, how we can go on and on and sometimes find out only too late that what we want isn't what we thought it was.
Jason Bateman plays a character who was once an aspiring rock musician but who has given up that dream for the family he felt he was supposed to have, for his wife. As a culture we overvalue emotional sacrifice, and their relationship shows us the damage it can do in the end.
He was relegated to a single room in the house, with no other trappings that spoke of him at all anywhere to be seen. His wife pushed his 'adolescent' hobby - even though that adolescent hobby helped pay their bills - out of sight. She was embarrassed by it.
That my wife's friend thinks all he needs to do is 'grow up' shows a fundamental lack of understanding. He wasn't being childish and he wasn't being selfish. On the contrary, for the first time in his life, he was being true to himself and in the process, being truthful to his wife. That life wasn't what he wanted and he knew that he wouldn't be happier with a child, that perhaps he might even be less happy.
His wife kept him tucked away and out of sight (sadly like I see happen all the time in the real world), refusing to acknowledge who and what he was, quite possibly what she'd initially fallen in love with.
Lest you think I am vilifying her, Jennifer Garner's character was terrified. She wanted desperately to be a mother, and all that aloof demeanor wasn't callousness or any real reflection of her internal character. On the contrary, it was a poignant depiction of her fear: afraid that she'd again be disappointed, afraid that she wouldn't and that she'd have to be a mother, she tried to armor herself against inevitable disappointment. Perhaps it was even a method of dealing with the increased emotional distance in her marriage.
That's the beauty of the film. It never criticizes, it never preaches, and it never flinches. People do the things people we know are doing. Beyond the quirky dialogue the movie feels real and unforced, it manages to tell its story without trying to wrangle tears and without aiming blame anywhere at all.
Sometimes the life we imagined isn't the life we get. I suppose 'sometimes' is a terrific understatement: no one I know has the life they thought they wanted. We all have the lives we stumbled into and we have to deal with them the best we can.
Some of us are undoubtedly happier than others, but I have to worry when people come away from the film having missed the point. I have to worry when a friend of my wife's can only see that people should shoehorn themselves into misery just to satisfy her idea of being grown up, an idea that amounts to little more than conforming to her wishes at the expense of their very soul.
We do this to each other, we tell each other that we should do what makes us happy, that we shouldn't worry about success or money and that we should find the calling that makes our hearts sing. But when people try to do just that, they become selfish, childish, or foolish. Suddenly, the quest to find ourselves must take a place behind the needs of those around us or we are vilified for being selfish children who need to grow up.
This film encourages us all to look past the surface to find our hearts and to find the hearts of those we care about. It encourages us to believe the best of each other. It never tries to paint a villain, only to show us that if we don't try to see each other and ourselves for what we are, it's easy to misunderstand what's happening in our lives.
Juno isn't really a teen pregnancy movie, it's a love story.
So this movie is as they say, a runaway success. I went to see it with my wife the other day (saw Cloverfield the same day, yay!) and while it was even funnier than I expected, what surprised me was just how sophisticated and utterly non-judgmental the entire thing was.
Before we go on, there are spoilers in here.
Be warned.
Regardless, let me start with a reaction to the film. My wife teaches yoga and exercises with a friend down the street from where I live. They have an interesting friendship that allows them to be really irritated with each other regularly yet continue to be friends. That says a lot about its strength. So I wasn't surprised when she told me about a somewhat acrimonious exchange they had over the movie Juno, yet they still had a fine time together.
Her friend had a problem with Jason Bateman's character. He was a bad guy. She said he just needed to grow up and be the adult that his family needed. She even went so far as to assume that he somehow sabotaged his wife's earlier pregnancies. Where she found sympathy for Garner's character and her plight, she had only condemnation for Bateman's.
At first glance, it almost seems like she has a valid point. In the film he abandons his wife and nearly destroys her hopes of adopting a child all so he can go make music, the dream of probably every other teenager in America. Seems pretty straightforward in its implications, doesn't it?
But what she failed to understand are the things my wife tried to point out to her, to no avail. To paraphrase her position: No, he should have just grown up and dealt with what he'd been given no matter the cost. He should be what she wanted him to be, not what he wanted to be.
First, though, it's important to recognize a critical element of the film, one that seems overlooked by many. That element is its lack of judgment.
Juno is quite possibly the first teenage pregnancy film I've seen that can potentially appeal to anyone regardless of their politics. At no point does it dwell on implications of immorality, the gender divide, or responsibility. Certainly each is touched on but there is never any censure nor is there any promotion of politics, gender or otherwise.
The film is what it is, and it isn't trying to be a message about teenage pregnancy so much as it is...a love story.
You heard me, this movie is about our hearts. It's about how we see the world and interact with its absurdities and cope with situations that have gone beyond our control. It's about how we can love and hate all in the same breath, how we can go on and on and sometimes find out only too late that what we want isn't what we thought it was.
Jason Bateman plays a character who was once an aspiring rock musician but who has given up that dream for the family he felt he was supposed to have, for his wife. As a culture we overvalue emotional sacrifice, and their relationship shows us the damage it can do in the end.
He was relegated to a single room in the house, with no other trappings that spoke of him at all anywhere to be seen. His wife pushed his 'adolescent' hobby - even though that adolescent hobby helped pay their bills - out of sight. She was embarrassed by it.
That my wife's friend thinks all he needs to do is 'grow up' shows a fundamental lack of understanding. He wasn't being childish and he wasn't being selfish. On the contrary, for the first time in his life, he was being true to himself and in the process, being truthful to his wife. That life wasn't what he wanted and he knew that he wouldn't be happier with a child, that perhaps he might even be less happy.
His wife kept him tucked away and out of sight (sadly like I see happen all the time in the real world), refusing to acknowledge who and what he was, quite possibly what she'd initially fallen in love with.
Lest you think I am vilifying her, Jennifer Garner's character was terrified. She wanted desperately to be a mother, and all that aloof demeanor wasn't callousness or any real reflection of her internal character. On the contrary, it was a poignant depiction of her fear: afraid that she'd again be disappointed, afraid that she wouldn't and that she'd have to be a mother, she tried to armor herself against inevitable disappointment. Perhaps it was even a method of dealing with the increased emotional distance in her marriage.
That's the beauty of the film. It never criticizes, it never preaches, and it never flinches. People do the things people we know are doing. Beyond the quirky dialogue the movie feels real and unforced, it manages to tell its story without trying to wrangle tears and without aiming blame anywhere at all.
Sometimes the life we imagined isn't the life we get. I suppose 'sometimes' is a terrific understatement: no one I know has the life they thought they wanted. We all have the lives we stumbled into and we have to deal with them the best we can.
Some of us are undoubtedly happier than others, but I have to worry when people come away from the film having missed the point. I have to worry when a friend of my wife's can only see that people should shoehorn themselves into misery just to satisfy her idea of being grown up, an idea that amounts to little more than conforming to her wishes at the expense of their very soul.
We do this to each other, we tell each other that we should do what makes us happy, that we shouldn't worry about success or money and that we should find the calling that makes our hearts sing. But when people try to do just that, they become selfish, childish, or foolish. Suddenly, the quest to find ourselves must take a place behind the needs of those around us or we are vilified for being selfish children who need to grow up.
This film encourages us all to look past the surface to find our hearts and to find the hearts of those we care about. It encourages us to believe the best of each other. It never tries to paint a villain, only to show us that if we don't try to see each other and ourselves for what we are, it's easy to misunderstand what's happening in our lives.
Juno isn't really a teen pregnancy movie, it's a love story.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sputtering Toward Life
Today, the UN voted in favor of a moratorium on the death penalty. Coming on the heels of New Jersey eliminating the death penalty for that state, the resolution predictably faced opposition from countries heavily invested in the process.
The United States is one of them. While not all states use capital punishment and not all that have it on the books exercise the option, the United States stands as one of the receding holdouts for the practice.
New Jersey gives me hope. That several more states are looking at a similar ban on the death penalty gives me further hope. If the pendulum swings far enough, maybe we can take that last step toward putting our proverbial money where our mouth is on the issue of basic human rights.
For my previous thoughts on the subject, look here.
The United States is one of them. While not all states use capital punishment and not all that have it on the books exercise the option, the United States stands as one of the receding holdouts for the practice.
New Jersey gives me hope. That several more states are looking at a similar ban on the death penalty gives me further hope. If the pendulum swings far enough, maybe we can take that last step toward putting our proverbial money where our mouth is on the issue of basic human rights.
For my previous thoughts on the subject, look here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
War on Christmas...Break out the SAMs!
Welcome to America, where apparently you need to be a Christian because...we're a Christian nation, yo.
For your reading pleasure, House Resolution 847:
( Cited from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847 )
Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
Ignoring for the moment that this is an unbelievable waste of legislative attention, and even that it is a largely meaningless gesture legally, why was this done and what is the underlying message?
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Steve King (R, IA), introduced this resolution after a similar one honoring Ramadan was introduced and indeed, it mimes the verbiage.
He refused to vote for or against religion resolutions that did not involve Christianity, but put his name on this and voted for a previous bill recognizing Christmas and honoring Christianity. He is on record as stating that America is a Christian nation and this seems to be another effort to legitimize his viewpoint.
Funny, I was under the impression that America was the world's melting pot, a place where people of all religions and cultures could come together to build prosperous and free lives. At least, I thought that's what it is supposed to aspire to. But King and many others appear to have other ideas.
Almost every year, I hear about the 'War' on Christmas, about how secular interests are trying to destroy Christmas and thereby undermine Christianity. Sunny Hundal has some interesting thoughts on that.
For me, suffice to say that every 'secularist' I know celebrates Christmas, a holiday that has become as cultural as religious. In point of fact, Christmas is celebrated in Japan, a largely Shinto nation, even if primarily as a buildup to New Year's. But perhaps King's problem is that Christ is not a pivotal part of this celebration.
Forgive me, but we've adopted religious holidays wholesale and converted them to non-religious celebrations, and indeed Christmas is the significant date for Mithra, the Unconquered Sun - and some others - not necessarily Christ.
It is hardly unusual for celebrations to change over time and adapt to shifts in culture and changes in society. Memorial Day here in the United States, ostensibly established to honor war dead, is a date when people visit the graves of any deceased relative and as often as not is merely an excuse for an early-season barbecue. Halloween, another holiday with its roots in religion, is now more cultural and just an excuse to have parties and socialize.
As a nation with a decidedly Christian majority, the point of this resolution is even stranger than its stated impetus. There is no institutional Christian persecution, at least not in the United States...the country to which this resolution primarily applies, as stated in it's text. There is no 'War on Christmas' or other great conspiracy to rob Christians of Christ in Christmas.
What this resolution does, however, is tie our lawmakers uncomfortably to a single over-arching religious tradition. It states unequivocally (with only 9 naysayers on the resolution) that our lawmakers are favorable to Christianity and its traditions. In and of itself, this isn't a problem. The problem is that once again our legislators are bringing religion uncomfortably close to government.
With Christianity and Christmas as popular as they are in this country, the resolution itself is pointless and little more than grandstanding. Ramadan and other traditions may be honored this way as a showing to others that we accept and welcome them. Such a move is hardly necessary for Christianity in a place where it is predominant and powerful.
It is, perhaps, a way to avoid making any laws relating to Christianity while also shouting out that those in support are religious, just like Joe Kentucky and Jane Texas. It walks in the uncomfortable clothing of a religious roll-call, a checklist. After all, King had rather inflammatory words for those that opposed him in the vote.
I believe King and his supporters did this to look good to their constituents. This is a bald-faced manipulation of power to secure a continuation of power by appealing in a way that is meaningless to those it honors and offensive to those it excludes, pointedly about one quarter of the United States.
I suppose that in the end it's really just much ado about nothing, as one man put it. There are raised voices and shaken fists and in the end a sorting of the ideology and opinion of our lawmakers. It drifts dangerously close to a litmus test not necessarily for office, but of reception for more legislation of the sort that actually can impact those excluded from the mindless back-slapping and congratulatory vapidity.
I wonder though, what those looking from the outside in are thinking when they watch what the lawmakers of the most dangerous (re: militarily powerful and aggressive) country on earth are doing as they work toward internal solidarity which then turns its face toward exclusion as it divides its battle lines into camps of 'us' and 'them.' The majority paints itself as under siege and in need of support, allies, and knowing who is for us and who is against us. It manufactures crises.
All told, another glowing example of American enlightenment, inclusion, and tolerance. It is sad when the politicians of such an advanced and powerful country have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of privilege as they respond to imagined demons...or do they? Maybe they really do understand what they're doing. That, perhaps, is the most profound implication of all.
For your reading pleasure, House Resolution 847:
( Cited from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847 )
Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
Ignoring for the moment that this is an unbelievable waste of legislative attention, and even that it is a largely meaningless gesture legally, why was this done and what is the underlying message?
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Steve King (R, IA), introduced this resolution after a similar one honoring Ramadan was introduced and indeed, it mimes the verbiage.
He refused to vote for or against religion resolutions that did not involve Christianity, but put his name on this and voted for a previous bill recognizing Christmas and honoring Christianity. He is on record as stating that America is a Christian nation and this seems to be another effort to legitimize his viewpoint.
Funny, I was under the impression that America was the world's melting pot, a place where people of all religions and cultures could come together to build prosperous and free lives. At least, I thought that's what it is supposed to aspire to. But King and many others appear to have other ideas.
Almost every year, I hear about the 'War' on Christmas, about how secular interests are trying to destroy Christmas and thereby undermine Christianity. Sunny Hundal has some interesting thoughts on that.
For me, suffice to say that every 'secularist' I know celebrates Christmas, a holiday that has become as cultural as religious. In point of fact, Christmas is celebrated in Japan, a largely Shinto nation, even if primarily as a buildup to New Year's. But perhaps King's problem is that Christ is not a pivotal part of this celebration.
Forgive me, but we've adopted religious holidays wholesale and converted them to non-religious celebrations, and indeed Christmas is the significant date for Mithra, the Unconquered Sun - and some others - not necessarily Christ.
It is hardly unusual for celebrations to change over time and adapt to shifts in culture and changes in society. Memorial Day here in the United States, ostensibly established to honor war dead, is a date when people visit the graves of any deceased relative and as often as not is merely an excuse for an early-season barbecue. Halloween, another holiday with its roots in religion, is now more cultural and just an excuse to have parties and socialize.
As a nation with a decidedly Christian majority, the point of this resolution is even stranger than its stated impetus. There is no institutional Christian persecution, at least not in the United States...the country to which this resolution primarily applies, as stated in it's text. There is no 'War on Christmas' or other great conspiracy to rob Christians of Christ in Christmas.
What this resolution does, however, is tie our lawmakers uncomfortably to a single over-arching religious tradition. It states unequivocally (with only 9 naysayers on the resolution) that our lawmakers are favorable to Christianity and its traditions. In and of itself, this isn't a problem. The problem is that once again our legislators are bringing religion uncomfortably close to government.
With Christianity and Christmas as popular as they are in this country, the resolution itself is pointless and little more than grandstanding. Ramadan and other traditions may be honored this way as a showing to others that we accept and welcome them. Such a move is hardly necessary for Christianity in a place where it is predominant and powerful.
It is, perhaps, a way to avoid making any laws relating to Christianity while also shouting out that those in support are religious, just like Joe Kentucky and Jane Texas. It walks in the uncomfortable clothing of a religious roll-call, a checklist. After all, King had rather inflammatory words for those that opposed him in the vote.
I believe King and his supporters did this to look good to their constituents. This is a bald-faced manipulation of power to secure a continuation of power by appealing in a way that is meaningless to those it honors and offensive to those it excludes, pointedly about one quarter of the United States.
I suppose that in the end it's really just much ado about nothing, as one man put it. There are raised voices and shaken fists and in the end a sorting of the ideology and opinion of our lawmakers. It drifts dangerously close to a litmus test not necessarily for office, but of reception for more legislation of the sort that actually can impact those excluded from the mindless back-slapping and congratulatory vapidity.
I wonder though, what those looking from the outside in are thinking when they watch what the lawmakers of the most dangerous (re: militarily powerful and aggressive) country on earth are doing as they work toward internal solidarity which then turns its face toward exclusion as it divides its battle lines into camps of 'us' and 'them.' The majority paints itself as under siege and in need of support, allies, and knowing who is for us and who is against us. It manufactures crises.
All told, another glowing example of American enlightenment, inclusion, and tolerance. It is sad when the politicians of such an advanced and powerful country have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of privilege as they respond to imagined demons...or do they? Maybe they really do understand what they're doing. That, perhaps, is the most profound implication of all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Making Criminals of Customers
Teenagers frequently think the world is out to get them, that everyone hates them, that no one understands them. Most often, this is a reflection of some other issue related to identity and uncertainty. Rest assured however, that like a true paranoid, sometimes they're right.
The RIAA, in fact, does hate them...and the rest of us as well. In fact, they're busy making criminals of customers right now.
I have a huge music collection, and when the time came to digitize it, I did so eagerly. I wanted to store all those CDs I bought, the vinyl and casettes and put everything onto my computer. Later, my iPod became the vehicle of choice to hold the more than 8,000 songs I wanted at my fingertips to listen as my mood shifted. I was under the impression the golden age of music had finally arrived.
To do so, I ripped my CDs using an MP3 encoder. To this day I still don't use iTunes or Media Player or Jukebox or anything else. I have a ripper written by a wonderful Spaniard that takes every CD I buy and converts them for use on my digital players.
But now...I'm a thief?
According to Jennifer Pariser in the article linked above, making a digital copy of music you purchased for personal use is stealing. Stealing one copy but stealing nonetheless.
Like most people I've spoken with, I've been operating under the assumption that because I paid for an album I can then convert the songs to a digital format for my own use on a digital media player, be that my PC or an iPod or other such player. I was under the impression that I was supporting the labels, the artists, the production and distribution companies, the support staff and so on.
Apparently purchasing the CD isn't enough. If I want to have a digital copy I have to also buy the songs in digital form. What I don't understand is the disconnect here.
Leaving aside that if I go to purchasing music solely through digital means that anyone working in the art or manufacturing part of the industry is left out of the profit equation, this looks like a thinly veiled ploy to get me to buy my music twice if I want to enjoy modern music players.
So who's the real thief here?
As a matter of ethics and support, I have been purchasing my music and converting it to digital format, under the impression that what I was doing was acceptable. After all, it is my media. I recognize that the labels and artists retain rights to the IP but that isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the method by which I enjoy what I've paid for.
It's none of their business what I listen to my music on because I've already paid for both the media (which I use for archival purposes) and the right to listen to the intellectual property contained thereon. This is not theft, this is fair use, regardless of how they want to define the term.
But the RIAA and its affiliates seem to want to treat their customers as hostile entities. Acting in good faith I am now, in their eyes, a thief. I am not a paying customer taking part in the time honored tradition of the exchange of value for value. Rather I am a predator preying on the poor exploited megacorporations that produce and distribute music. The act of making my music available to me, digitally, is taking food from the mouths of their children; violating their right to dictate the exchange exlusively in their favor; turning me into a slavering monster with no identifiable ethical framework as I devour the fruits of their labor by...using what I bought as is convenient for me.
I don't distribute music illegally and I buy the music I digitize. I am not an enemy of the RIAA and I am not a criminal...but that's the relationship they seem to want as they file John and Jane Doe suits with universities, label honest customers as thieves, and work studiously to avoid the 21st century and how it's changed the way we all do business.
Seriously, if they pursue this they will push people into piracy. If I can't use what I buy as I want, what's my motivation to give them what they want? If I'm a criminal either way, why shouldn't I save myself some money and aggravation and pirate my music? I've paid for the right/license to listen to my music. I refuse to allow anyone to dictate the way I enjoy my music.
The thing is, I want to be a good customer. I want to support the artists I listen to. I do not want to be told I'm a criminal simply because I don't use the product I buy exactly as the seller wishes. Threats are not the answer. If the RIAA insists on treating people as criminals, that's exactly what they will become. If the RIAA instead changes tack and decides to work WITH its customers in enabling freedom of format they may just find the market giving back to them.
So think about it, RIAA. You fear that we will take the path of least resistance and pirate our music rather than pay for it...and your solution is to make it difficult to digitize what we legally purchase by telling us you regard it as an illegal act. Where do you think that will end? I, for one, refuse to buy a song twice.
I think it's pretty obvious.
The RIAA, in fact, does hate them...and the rest of us as well. In fact, they're busy making criminals of customers right now.
I have a huge music collection, and when the time came to digitize it, I did so eagerly. I wanted to store all those CDs I bought, the vinyl and casettes and put everything onto my computer. Later, my iPod became the vehicle of choice to hold the more than 8,000 songs I wanted at my fingertips to listen as my mood shifted. I was under the impression the golden age of music had finally arrived.
To do so, I ripped my CDs using an MP3 encoder. To this day I still don't use iTunes or Media Player or Jukebox or anything else. I have a ripper written by a wonderful Spaniard that takes every CD I buy and converts them for use on my digital players.
But now...I'm a thief?
According to Jennifer Pariser in the article linked above, making a digital copy of music you purchased for personal use is stealing. Stealing one copy but stealing nonetheless.
Like most people I've spoken with, I've been operating under the assumption that because I paid for an album I can then convert the songs to a digital format for my own use on a digital media player, be that my PC or an iPod or other such player. I was under the impression that I was supporting the labels, the artists, the production and distribution companies, the support staff and so on.
Apparently purchasing the CD isn't enough. If I want to have a digital copy I have to also buy the songs in digital form. What I don't understand is the disconnect here.
Leaving aside that if I go to purchasing music solely through digital means that anyone working in the art or manufacturing part of the industry is left out of the profit equation, this looks like a thinly veiled ploy to get me to buy my music twice if I want to enjoy modern music players.
So who's the real thief here?
As a matter of ethics and support, I have been purchasing my music and converting it to digital format, under the impression that what I was doing was acceptable. After all, it is my media. I recognize that the labels and artists retain rights to the IP but that isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the method by which I enjoy what I've paid for.
It's none of their business what I listen to my music on because I've already paid for both the media (which I use for archival purposes) and the right to listen to the intellectual property contained thereon. This is not theft, this is fair use, regardless of how they want to define the term.
But the RIAA and its affiliates seem to want to treat their customers as hostile entities. Acting in good faith I am now, in their eyes, a thief. I am not a paying customer taking part in the time honored tradition of the exchange of value for value. Rather I am a predator preying on the poor exploited megacorporations that produce and distribute music. The act of making my music available to me, digitally, is taking food from the mouths of their children; violating their right to dictate the exchange exlusively in their favor; turning me into a slavering monster with no identifiable ethical framework as I devour the fruits of their labor by...using what I bought as is convenient for me.
I don't distribute music illegally and I buy the music I digitize. I am not an enemy of the RIAA and I am not a criminal...but that's the relationship they seem to want as they file John and Jane Doe suits with universities, label honest customers as thieves, and work studiously to avoid the 21st century and how it's changed the way we all do business.
Seriously, if they pursue this they will push people into piracy. If I can't use what I buy as I want, what's my motivation to give them what they want? If I'm a criminal either way, why shouldn't I save myself some money and aggravation and pirate my music? I've paid for the right/license to listen to my music. I refuse to allow anyone to dictate the way I enjoy my music.
The thing is, I want to be a good customer. I want to support the artists I listen to. I do not want to be told I'm a criminal simply because I don't use the product I buy exactly as the seller wishes. Threats are not the answer. If the RIAA insists on treating people as criminals, that's exactly what they will become. If the RIAA instead changes tack and decides to work WITH its customers in enabling freedom of format they may just find the market giving back to them.
So think about it, RIAA. You fear that we will take the path of least resistance and pirate our music rather than pay for it...and your solution is to make it difficult to digitize what we legally purchase by telling us you regard it as an illegal act. Where do you think that will end? I, for one, refuse to buy a song twice.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
"So this is how liberty dies..."
It may have been uttered by a fictional character, but the words ring loudly and the impact of that moment bears tremendous similarity to the reality of the previous passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and now the Military Commissions Act.
A common catchphrase in the United States has revolved around the idea that if we do nothing, 'the Terrorists have already won.' Meant to reinforce Edmund Burke's comment that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," the phrase has taken on new and muddled life.
In standard parlance, it actually means that we cannot allow the terrorists to get away with anything, and that any and all sacrifices made to enable that are acceptable. Oddly, this is in direct contrast to another laudable historical thinker - Benjamin Franklin - who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.*"
America is experiencing an identity crisis directly tied to its leadership. For generations we have billed ourselves and believed ourselves to be the greatest bastion of liberty and justice in the world. Indeed, we prided ourselves on our tolerance, on our willingness to allow the guilty to go free in order that the innocent escape state injustice, on our position as the fulcrum on which the free world moved.
Certainly some of our previous wonder was hubris and myopia, and perhaps that is the root cause of our current problems, but the fact is that the United States is on a downward ethical slide and we can't find the brakes.
A smile crinkles his eyes every time Bush tries to say soberly, "I am doing this to protect the American people," and all the while he slowly strips away civil liberties and fundamental American freedoms in the name of security and safety. I talk to people daily who agree with not only his goals but his methods.
Perhaps the greatest irony is the comment Bush made, "We will answer brutal murder with patient justice."
This new Act strips rights from people previously protected by the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has always implicitly protected all people coming into contact with the US legal system, polity or territory outside of military considerations. Now however, we eschew the previous American justice where people are innocent until proven guilty for something more strikingly Mosaic or Hammurabic. We will extract our justice (i.e. vengeance) in blood and oppression.
We can now skirt the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, and common decency such as it is, to torture - I mean, coerce - testimony from a prisoner. We deny them the right to challenge their detention legally. We have fundamentally changed American justice and what it stands for.
No more is America the Land of the Free or the Home of the Brave. We have become shackled cowards who fail to realize that the terrorists won when we changed our way of life and altered our legal system to become more like them.
I can only pray this measure comes before the Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional.
* Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
A common catchphrase in the United States has revolved around the idea that if we do nothing, 'the Terrorists have already won.' Meant to reinforce Edmund Burke's comment that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," the phrase has taken on new and muddled life.
In standard parlance, it actually means that we cannot allow the terrorists to get away with anything, and that any and all sacrifices made to enable that are acceptable. Oddly, this is in direct contrast to another laudable historical thinker - Benjamin Franklin - who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.*"
America is experiencing an identity crisis directly tied to its leadership. For generations we have billed ourselves and believed ourselves to be the greatest bastion of liberty and justice in the world. Indeed, we prided ourselves on our tolerance, on our willingness to allow the guilty to go free in order that the innocent escape state injustice, on our position as the fulcrum on which the free world moved.
Certainly some of our previous wonder was hubris and myopia, and perhaps that is the root cause of our current problems, but the fact is that the United States is on a downward ethical slide and we can't find the brakes.
A smile crinkles his eyes every time Bush tries to say soberly, "I am doing this to protect the American people," and all the while he slowly strips away civil liberties and fundamental American freedoms in the name of security and safety. I talk to people daily who agree with not only his goals but his methods.
Perhaps the greatest irony is the comment Bush made, "We will answer brutal murder with patient justice."
This new Act strips rights from people previously protected by the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has always implicitly protected all people coming into contact with the US legal system, polity or territory outside of military considerations. Now however, we eschew the previous American justice where people are innocent until proven guilty for something more strikingly Mosaic or Hammurabic. We will extract our justice (i.e. vengeance) in blood and oppression.
We can now skirt the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, and common decency such as it is, to torture - I mean, coerce - testimony from a prisoner. We deny them the right to challenge their detention legally. We have fundamentally changed American justice and what it stands for.
No more is America the Land of the Free or the Home of the Brave. We have become shackled cowards who fail to realize that the terrorists won when we changed our way of life and altered our legal system to become more like them.
I can only pray this measure comes before the Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional.
* Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
This one time, at Jesus Camp...
Watch this. Jesus Camp.
Now, I have yet to see this film, so I'll deal more with some of the themes it touches on rather than comment on the film itself. But just the trailer there raises some interesting and important subjects.
Two things stand out in particular: "We pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag..." and the images of the children in camouflage, with painted faces, acting like warriors.
Having been involved (still am, on the surface) in a religious organization regarded by many as fundamentalist itself, I've seen this behavior and dogmatic reinforcement at work first hand. Christian churches of the fundamentalist sort enjoy seeing themselves as under siege morally, ethically, and culturally. It provides them ammunition of the sort enjoyed by martyrs, victims of genocide, and paints them a world of moral superiority for their reviled yet righteous ways. They view themselves unapologetically as the last bastion of righteousness in the world, beset on all sides by agents of the Devil bent on tearing down the Kingdom of God and dragging every last soul kicking and screaming into Hell.
Because the stakes are so high, they must bring their message of hope and salvation to the world or God will hold them accountable for doing nothing in the face of wickedness. In some cases, rejection of the message is accepted though not understood. In others, it is met with vitriol or violence. They cannot conceive of a paradigm where Christ could be rejected.
This mentality of "Us vs. the World" leads to some interesting evolutions of thought and practice. The construction of a monolithic and near unassailable enemy mandates not just the ally that is God, but unwavering loyalty and a separation from that which may corrupt. If it makes you uncomfortable or is not explicitly about Jesus Christ, it is of the Devil.
The problem comes, in large part, when the reality of the world crashes through the front door and these people realize that their comfort zones are defined in large part by homogeneity. Things that are different make them uncomfortable and sometimes include ideas that aren't necessarily at home with the Bible. Suddenly these things that were otherwise innocuous or that may have had the potential to educate and enlighten are evil. Evil they must be, but they are also enticing to the children.
The only way to protect the children, in their innocence and inability to discern the wiles of the Devil, is to indoctrinate them young. Surround them with Jesus, teach them about Jesus, tell them that those who do not believe in Jesus are going to Hell. Tell them at their very lives and souls are on the line, that it is a war and that they are its most vital and powerful soldiers, and tell them that those who oppose them are in league with the Devil. They are evil and if they cannot see the error of their ways, they will be as dry wheat before a raging firestorm.
The End is coming and if you are not with Jesus, you are against Him.
THIS is what frightens and disturbs the rest of us. In our own backyards, neighborhoods, boardrooms and coffee shops there are people who are so opposed to any lifestyle that eschews Jesus Christ that they are bringing up their children to believe they must be Warriors for God, that the only way to deal with the heretics and infidels is through conversion or violence...violence sanctioned by God.
This is about fundamentally remaking American society in the image of the Evangelical. They don't want to share the world with the rest of us. Like the old saying went: "Make the world England." So it is that the Evangelical Christian bloc moves to make the world Christian.
Everyone wants to be able to identify with other people, to see in them pieces of ourselves and know that they aren't that different from us. In and of itself, this is healthy and normal. We select, group, sort and judge in order to facilitate every aspect of our lives. But what happens when we decide that it isn't good enough to try to find like-mindedness amongst the selection and that we simply want to do away with all choices but one? What happens when we value everything different as 'bad?'
We can all look at ideologies opposed to our own and see where they fail in their own doctrine, but it is far more difficult to look at ourselves. Just as this camp continually claims persecution for its ideas, it wants nothing more than to persecute others for theirs. The America they wish to build has no room in it for the rest of us, and in time they would find that it would selectively exclude some of the prior faithful as well, until true homogeneity had been achieved or the entire structure collapsed in on itself.
Perhaps someday their children will begin to think and question in spite of their indoctrination to do no such thing, and perhaps it is in those children that America will find it's true saviors.
Now, I have yet to see this film, so I'll deal more with some of the themes it touches on rather than comment on the film itself. But just the trailer there raises some interesting and important subjects.
Two things stand out in particular: "We pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag..." and the images of the children in camouflage, with painted faces, acting like warriors.
Having been involved (still am, on the surface) in a religious organization regarded by many as fundamentalist itself, I've seen this behavior and dogmatic reinforcement at work first hand. Christian churches of the fundamentalist sort enjoy seeing themselves as under siege morally, ethically, and culturally. It provides them ammunition of the sort enjoyed by martyrs, victims of genocide, and paints them a world of moral superiority for their reviled yet righteous ways. They view themselves unapologetically as the last bastion of righteousness in the world, beset on all sides by agents of the Devil bent on tearing down the Kingdom of God and dragging every last soul kicking and screaming into Hell.
Because the stakes are so high, they must bring their message of hope and salvation to the world or God will hold them accountable for doing nothing in the face of wickedness. In some cases, rejection of the message is accepted though not understood. In others, it is met with vitriol or violence. They cannot conceive of a paradigm where Christ could be rejected.
This mentality of "Us vs. the World" leads to some interesting evolutions of thought and practice. The construction of a monolithic and near unassailable enemy mandates not just the ally that is God, but unwavering loyalty and a separation from that which may corrupt. If it makes you uncomfortable or is not explicitly about Jesus Christ, it is of the Devil.
The problem comes, in large part, when the reality of the world crashes through the front door and these people realize that their comfort zones are defined in large part by homogeneity. Things that are different make them uncomfortable and sometimes include ideas that aren't necessarily at home with the Bible. Suddenly these things that were otherwise innocuous or that may have had the potential to educate and enlighten are evil. Evil they must be, but they are also enticing to the children.
The only way to protect the children, in their innocence and inability to discern the wiles of the Devil, is to indoctrinate them young. Surround them with Jesus, teach them about Jesus, tell them that those who do not believe in Jesus are going to Hell. Tell them at their very lives and souls are on the line, that it is a war and that they are its most vital and powerful soldiers, and tell them that those who oppose them are in league with the Devil. They are evil and if they cannot see the error of their ways, they will be as dry wheat before a raging firestorm.
The End is coming and if you are not with Jesus, you are against Him.
THIS is what frightens and disturbs the rest of us. In our own backyards, neighborhoods, boardrooms and coffee shops there are people who are so opposed to any lifestyle that eschews Jesus Christ that they are bringing up their children to believe they must be Warriors for God, that the only way to deal with the heretics and infidels is through conversion or violence...violence sanctioned by God.
This is about fundamentally remaking American society in the image of the Evangelical. They don't want to share the world with the rest of us. Like the old saying went: "Make the world England." So it is that the Evangelical Christian bloc moves to make the world Christian.
Everyone wants to be able to identify with other people, to see in them pieces of ourselves and know that they aren't that different from us. In and of itself, this is healthy and normal. We select, group, sort and judge in order to facilitate every aspect of our lives. But what happens when we decide that it isn't good enough to try to find like-mindedness amongst the selection and that we simply want to do away with all choices but one? What happens when we value everything different as 'bad?'
We can all look at ideologies opposed to our own and see where they fail in their own doctrine, but it is far more difficult to look at ourselves. Just as this camp continually claims persecution for its ideas, it wants nothing more than to persecute others for theirs. The America they wish to build has no room in it for the rest of us, and in time they would find that it would selectively exclude some of the prior faithful as well, until true homogeneity had been achieved or the entire structure collapsed in on itself.
Perhaps someday their children will begin to think and question in spite of their indoctrination to do no such thing, and perhaps it is in those children that America will find it's true saviors.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Mormon Women
I haven't posted for a while. I blame school. I've been going for a very long time and I was finishing up some classes that gave me fits. Anyway, that's over and hopefully now I can vent my spleen with the best of them.
I decided recently to begin cataloguing my issues with my childhood religion and began with an issue that bothers me significantly: Cain and Abel. I acknowledge that my issues with this tale are rather pedestrian and unsophisticated, but it seemed as good a place as any, since tackling Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design is being handled in such wonderful overabundance these days. In the course of it I was distracted by tales of Lilith.
Tales of Lilith, Adam and Eve (there were two?!) turned to discussions on obedience which turned to my recent discovery of New Order Mormon, Zarahemla City Limits, and other sites. While I could easily become distracted again with the overwhelming amount of information and topics that spill out of this line of inquiry, these sites in conjunction with my reading about obedience in the church reminded me of a General Conference talk given a few years ago that appalled me and that caused my wife and I to mock it rather relentlessly.
A Woman of Faith is a shocking opus to the role women play in the LDS church and the degree of indoctrination that permeates the fabric of the religion concerning the expectations of women. I don't believe the link contains the entirety of the talk, as I remember it being longer, but there are no notations that it was abridged, so I'll assume it is complete.
In this admonition to set aside all aspirations of independence, free-will, and equality, we see illustrated the utter contempt some Mormon women have for themselves. I won't break it down point by point, but let you read it and decide for yourself what you take from each bullet point and her illustration of what a Woman of Faith ought to be. What I will do is describe what my wife and I took from the talk.
In it, the speaker describes a woman who is able to put herself after God, after her husband, after her children, and after her social obligations. She trusts God, the prophet, her husband's counsel. In more than one spot, a Woman of Faith is described through her relation to and trust in, the male participants in her life. In almost no written exemplar of masculinity is a man defined by his relation to a woman of any sort. Here, a woman is defined almost solely by her male-prescribed role.
But more than that, more than her utter reliance on the Lord to give her life meaning and more than her life revolving around the utter selfishness of total self-sacrifice is the general message (in spite of several comments to the contrary) that a Woman of Faith is perfect. She does all the right things, prays at the right time and for the right reasons, never loses faith, never makes waves, and glories in her servitude. She is the unattainable, the unfathomable, the unbelievable.
A Woman of Faith is an ideal that makes the fallible women the talk is targeted at feel an overwhelming sense of guilt when they comprehend they are not that woman. No one can be, yet to be a Woman of Faith the highest ideals of the religion must be realized. Self is relegated to a position of unimportance or at least delay as service consumes all. A Woman of Faith is unrealistic, yet set as the standard rather than the ideal.
I'm certain the speaker didn't intend that message. I'm certain she felt that the image she presented was one of the ideal to aspire to, yet the presentation was such that I wasn't the only one to come away from it utterly aghast. My wife only owned up to feeling the same way after an offhand comment I made about Women of Faith being perfect. Perfectly stupid.
As a standard, a Woman of Faith fails. She represents an idealized and pedestal-bound painting, perfect in its execution and humble in its artistry. She never steps outside her authorized territory - never threatens the status quo. She is happy to take patriarchal orders and exercise the little power she has through the moral authority she is automatically granted by virtue of her sex, deserving or not.
In all, a Woman of Faith is complicit in the subjugation of women in the church. By subordinating her will to that of the male authority in the organization, she not only allows control, but glorifies her secondary position to the extent that to oppose it is to oppose virtue and goodness. From within the context of the faithful, the idea is nearly unassailable.
Anyway, I've ranted enough for now. Suffice to say that we use the term Woman of Faith as a humorous derogatory in my house. It's for the Super Soccer Moms, the women that don't exist or that are not-so-secretly dysfunctional and unable or unwilling to cry out for help. Whenever my wife says she's having stress or trouble dealing with the issues in her life, I tell her, "Honey, if you were only a Woman of Faith, you'd have no problems you know." It usually gets a laugh.
I decided recently to begin cataloguing my issues with my childhood religion and began with an issue that bothers me significantly: Cain and Abel. I acknowledge that my issues with this tale are rather pedestrian and unsophisticated, but it seemed as good a place as any, since tackling Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design is being handled in such wonderful overabundance these days. In the course of it I was distracted by tales of Lilith.
Tales of Lilith, Adam and Eve (there were two?!) turned to discussions on obedience which turned to my recent discovery of New Order Mormon, Zarahemla City Limits, and other sites. While I could easily become distracted again with the overwhelming amount of information and topics that spill out of this line of inquiry, these sites in conjunction with my reading about obedience in the church reminded me of a General Conference talk given a few years ago that appalled me and that caused my wife and I to mock it rather relentlessly.
A Woman of Faith is a shocking opus to the role women play in the LDS church and the degree of indoctrination that permeates the fabric of the religion concerning the expectations of women. I don't believe the link contains the entirety of the talk, as I remember it being longer, but there are no notations that it was abridged, so I'll assume it is complete.
In this admonition to set aside all aspirations of independence, free-will, and equality, we see illustrated the utter contempt some Mormon women have for themselves. I won't break it down point by point, but let you read it and decide for yourself what you take from each bullet point and her illustration of what a Woman of Faith ought to be. What I will do is describe what my wife and I took from the talk.
In it, the speaker describes a woman who is able to put herself after God, after her husband, after her children, and after her social obligations. She trusts God, the prophet, her husband's counsel. In more than one spot, a Woman of Faith is described through her relation to and trust in, the male participants in her life. In almost no written exemplar of masculinity is a man defined by his relation to a woman of any sort. Here, a woman is defined almost solely by her male-prescribed role.
But more than that, more than her utter reliance on the Lord to give her life meaning and more than her life revolving around the utter selfishness of total self-sacrifice is the general message (in spite of several comments to the contrary) that a Woman of Faith is perfect. She does all the right things, prays at the right time and for the right reasons, never loses faith, never makes waves, and glories in her servitude. She is the unattainable, the unfathomable, the unbelievable.
A Woman of Faith is an ideal that makes the fallible women the talk is targeted at feel an overwhelming sense of guilt when they comprehend they are not that woman. No one can be, yet to be a Woman of Faith the highest ideals of the religion must be realized. Self is relegated to a position of unimportance or at least delay as service consumes all. A Woman of Faith is unrealistic, yet set as the standard rather than the ideal.
I'm certain the speaker didn't intend that message. I'm certain she felt that the image she presented was one of the ideal to aspire to, yet the presentation was such that I wasn't the only one to come away from it utterly aghast. My wife only owned up to feeling the same way after an offhand comment I made about Women of Faith being perfect. Perfectly stupid.
As a standard, a Woman of Faith fails. She represents an idealized and pedestal-bound painting, perfect in its execution and humble in its artistry. She never steps outside her authorized territory - never threatens the status quo. She is happy to take patriarchal orders and exercise the little power she has through the moral authority she is automatically granted by virtue of her sex, deserving or not.
In all, a Woman of Faith is complicit in the subjugation of women in the church. By subordinating her will to that of the male authority in the organization, she not only allows control, but glorifies her secondary position to the extent that to oppose it is to oppose virtue and goodness. From within the context of the faithful, the idea is nearly unassailable.
Anyway, I've ranted enough for now. Suffice to say that we use the term Woman of Faith as a humorous derogatory in my house. It's for the Super Soccer Moms, the women that don't exist or that are not-so-secretly dysfunctional and unable or unwilling to cry out for help. Whenever my wife says she's having stress or trouble dealing with the issues in her life, I tell her, "Honey, if you were only a Woman of Faith, you'd have no problems you know." It usually gets a laugh.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Flaming Lips
So the day after posting that last bit about the flag-burning, I heard an interview with Orrin Hatch, sponsor of the bill.
There are two things that illuminate this issue more than any other. I'm going to have to paraphrase.
The first thing he said that seemed completely nonsensical was that no one could possibly be against anti-flag-burning measures. If I remember the comments correctly, he said of the bill, "Who could be against that?"
I can only assume he's willfully ignoring the fact that since it has yet to pass the Senate, people obviously have their reasons. I outlined several of mine previously, but let's again not forget the First Amendment and that people may wish to express themselves differently than he does.
The second thing he said was far more illuminating: Hatch said he felt the Supreme Court was thumbing its nose at Congress and the will of the people and that they had no business in the crafting of law.
I am boggled.
The whole point of the Supreme Court on a macro level is to provide a counter to the power of the President and Congress. Certainly the Court doesn't actually draft law, but they are fully within their purview to denounce, validate or otherwise pass judgment on laws that come into question before them. Their job is to interpret law and even to reject law if it is found to be incompatible with the ideals of our civil justice system.
But I'm sure he actually knows this and is seeking to appeal to the stupid or the uneducated.
Ultimately, I came away with a realization that this has nothing to do with the will of the people, this is internecine squabbling of the calibre my pre-teen children engage in. This is about bullying and hurt feelings and other things that should have no place in government (yet sadly do).
Grow up, Hatch.
There are two things that illuminate this issue more than any other. I'm going to have to paraphrase.
The first thing he said that seemed completely nonsensical was that no one could possibly be against anti-flag-burning measures. If I remember the comments correctly, he said of the bill, "Who could be against that?"
I can only assume he's willfully ignoring the fact that since it has yet to pass the Senate, people obviously have their reasons. I outlined several of mine previously, but let's again not forget the First Amendment and that people may wish to express themselves differently than he does.
The second thing he said was far more illuminating: Hatch said he felt the Supreme Court was thumbing its nose at Congress and the will of the people and that they had no business in the crafting of law.
I am boggled.
The whole point of the Supreme Court on a macro level is to provide a counter to the power of the President and Congress. Certainly the Court doesn't actually draft law, but they are fully within their purview to denounce, validate or otherwise pass judgment on laws that come into question before them. Their job is to interpret law and even to reject law if it is found to be incompatible with the ideals of our civil justice system.
But I'm sure he actually knows this and is seeking to appeal to the stupid or the uneducated.
Ultimately, I came away with a realization that this has nothing to do with the will of the people, this is internecine squabbling of the calibre my pre-teen children engage in. This is about bullying and hurt feelings and other things that should have no place in government (yet sadly do).
Grow up, Hatch.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Burn, Baby! Burn!
Once more, Congress has decided to spend their time trying to pass an amendment to ban flag-burning, or in point of fact, desecration of any sort.
I'll let that sink in.
The key word here is Amendment. The Constitution of the country is the foundation of its legal and political frameworks. As such it provides a baseline for law, national ethics and values. Coupled with the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), the document defines how the United States approaches law through the implementation of community standard (majority rule) and its coupling with protection for the rights of minority groups. Since its inception, amendments have been made with the intention of being so sweeping they represented the will of the nation to a degree that should be unassailable by special interests.
It hasn't been all shining moments and progressive lawmaking (see the amendments on prohibition for our case in point), but that only drives my irritation home further.
The 11th Amendment restricted Judiciary power. The 12th established the Electoral College.
The 13th and 14th Amendment freed the slaves and guaranteed them rights and citizenship and the 15th Amendment circumvented popular interpretation of some wording in the Constitution to ensure them the vote.
The 16th Amendment clarified income taxation. The 17th removed the appointment of Senators and made them subject to popular vote. The 18th and 21st Amendments are the aforementioned Prohibition Amendments and we'd all do well to forget that travesty of lawmaking. The 19th Amendment did for women what the 15th was supposed to do for the ex-slave population. The 20th limits the damage an outgoing President and other lawmakers can do. The 22nd Amendment limits Presidential terms. The 23rd Amendment gave D.C. residents the ability to vote, which they had not had previously. The 24th Amendment removed the polling tax, allowing more access to the vote. The 25th Amendment clarified succession to the Presidency. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting aget to 18. Finally, the 27th Amendment modified the way Congress votes itself raises.
At least 9 of the post Bill of Rights Amendments deal directly or indirectly with voting. Others with distribution of power, taxation, and corruption. These are all vital and important issues dealing with some of the fundamentals that affect the functioning of the republic.
Yet...Congress now wants to rehash ground not dissimilar to that traversed by the 18th through the imposition of a law desired by a select group of special interests that trample freedoms established through previous articles, namely the first.
The proposed 28th Amendment reads: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
First, like so many items championed by the great United States Congress, the verbiage here is profoundly vague. This is, no doubt, intentional. Just as the open nature of the 1st Amendment allows a broad reading for its interpretation, this proposed amendment will be similarly sweeping if it ever passes.
The definition of desecration includes disrespect and as such, limits freedom of speech in ways no other censor has managed. Granted, the verbiage utilizes the word physical which limits its scope somewhat, however, the generalized nature of the declaration allows for punitive action through legislation and judicial challenge.
Here's the real thrust of my objection, though:
The flag is...well, a flag. It's cloth. It is certainly symbolic of the United States and of the values and ethics it espouses, but in the end, it is just a tapestry of iconography. It is not mystically powerful nor is it a housing for the soul of the nation. It is, and only is, a standard to be waved over national assets and holdings.
I don't think those that wish to obstruct the mistreatment of the flag realize that they are empowering those they're trying so hard to neuter. By imparting inflated relevance to Old Glory, they inadvertently supply their detractors with significant power. If it is as important as they say, then those who burn it accomplish more than protest, they achieve an emotional and ideological victory through their public destruction, indeed their public desecration, of the flag. By supplying them with the means to inflict ideological trauma, they will use it.
Contrast this: by never legislating a change to the ability to destroy the flag in protest, lawmakers and U.S. citizens retain the ability to snort in derision or indifference and move on with their lives, removing a significant portion of the ideological power breaking the law would have in a situation like this. Unlegislated, the imagery of foreign nationals burning the flag is incendiary (no pun intended) but not aggressive. Aggression manifests when such protests breach legal boundaries other than those governing open fires within city limits.
Ultimately, this movement is a waste of time, energy and focus. Legislators need to concentrate on vital and important issues like our eroding freedoms under the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act or our civil and human rights record in relation to Guantanamo Bay or our farce of an educational system.
I'll let that sink in.
The key word here is Amendment. The Constitution of the country is the foundation of its legal and political frameworks. As such it provides a baseline for law, national ethics and values. Coupled with the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), the document defines how the United States approaches law through the implementation of community standard (majority rule) and its coupling with protection for the rights of minority groups. Since its inception, amendments have been made with the intention of being so sweeping they represented the will of the nation to a degree that should be unassailable by special interests.
It hasn't been all shining moments and progressive lawmaking (see the amendments on prohibition for our case in point), but that only drives my irritation home further.
The 11th Amendment restricted Judiciary power. The 12th established the Electoral College.
The 13th and 14th Amendment freed the slaves and guaranteed them rights and citizenship and the 15th Amendment circumvented popular interpretation of some wording in the Constitution to ensure them the vote.
The 16th Amendment clarified income taxation. The 17th removed the appointment of Senators and made them subject to popular vote. The 18th and 21st Amendments are the aforementioned Prohibition Amendments and we'd all do well to forget that travesty of lawmaking. The 19th Amendment did for women what the 15th was supposed to do for the ex-slave population. The 20th limits the damage an outgoing President and other lawmakers can do. The 22nd Amendment limits Presidential terms. The 23rd Amendment gave D.C. residents the ability to vote, which they had not had previously. The 24th Amendment removed the polling tax, allowing more access to the vote. The 25th Amendment clarified succession to the Presidency. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting aget to 18. Finally, the 27th Amendment modified the way Congress votes itself raises.
At least 9 of the post Bill of Rights Amendments deal directly or indirectly with voting. Others with distribution of power, taxation, and corruption. These are all vital and important issues dealing with some of the fundamentals that affect the functioning of the republic.
Yet...Congress now wants to rehash ground not dissimilar to that traversed by the 18th through the imposition of a law desired by a select group of special interests that trample freedoms established through previous articles, namely the first.
The proposed 28th Amendment reads: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
First, like so many items championed by the great United States Congress, the verbiage here is profoundly vague. This is, no doubt, intentional. Just as the open nature of the 1st Amendment allows a broad reading for its interpretation, this proposed amendment will be similarly sweeping if it ever passes.
The definition of desecration includes disrespect and as such, limits freedom of speech in ways no other censor has managed. Granted, the verbiage utilizes the word physical which limits its scope somewhat, however, the generalized nature of the declaration allows for punitive action through legislation and judicial challenge.
Here's the real thrust of my objection, though:
The flag is...well, a flag. It's cloth. It is certainly symbolic of the United States and of the values and ethics it espouses, but in the end, it is just a tapestry of iconography. It is not mystically powerful nor is it a housing for the soul of the nation. It is, and only is, a standard to be waved over national assets and holdings.
I don't think those that wish to obstruct the mistreatment of the flag realize that they are empowering those they're trying so hard to neuter. By imparting inflated relevance to Old Glory, they inadvertently supply their detractors with significant power. If it is as important as they say, then those who burn it accomplish more than protest, they achieve an emotional and ideological victory through their public destruction, indeed their public desecration, of the flag. By supplying them with the means to inflict ideological trauma, they will use it.
Contrast this: by never legislating a change to the ability to destroy the flag in protest, lawmakers and U.S. citizens retain the ability to snort in derision or indifference and move on with their lives, removing a significant portion of the ideological power breaking the law would have in a situation like this. Unlegislated, the imagery of foreign nationals burning the flag is incendiary (no pun intended) but not aggressive. Aggression manifests when such protests breach legal boundaries other than those governing open fires within city limits.
Ultimately, this movement is a waste of time, energy and focus. Legislators need to concentrate on vital and important issues like our eroding freedoms under the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act or our civil and human rights record in relation to Guantanamo Bay or our farce of an educational system.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
My Lai Redux
Haditha Massacre
I really, honestly hope it isn't what it looks like. I hope this character assessment is more accurate and that something else happened here, but I'm losing that hope rapidly.
But what this conflict showcases for the United States is something it doesn't want to face up to. The US doesn't want to acknowledge that it's lost the moral authority to intervene in the world's problems anymore and worse, it doesn't want to acknowledge that the blame is squarely with the policy makers and I'll tell you why: Those guys that committed the massacre are children. If not biologically, then ethically and emotionally.
They are not psychologically equipped or prepared to face what they do day in and day out and as a result, they are becoming trigger-happy. They live in a world where their enemy looks completely innocuous before they explode or pull a gun. They, in turn, become murderous as a survival mechanism.
Couple this with the tension of wartime activities and the reality of what happens when people have guns in their hands, and this is what you get.
No one in the Capital or in the Joint Chiefs seem to think that psychological attention needs to be paid to the people we send out there to make sure they can make good decisions and that they aren't damaged to uselessness by what they experience. They don't prepare them and they don't de-condition them. We apparently learned little from Vietnam.
While the immediate fault still and always lies with the killers, nearly equal blame can be laid at the feet of those who treat them like fucking hammers. They are not, and never will be, tools. Rather, they shouldn't be, but they are.
No one on the Hill cares about them. Despite sharing culpability, this will be coined an isolated incident and swept under the rug as quickly as possible.
I really, honestly hope it isn't what it looks like. I hope this character assessment is more accurate and that something else happened here, but I'm losing that hope rapidly.
But what this conflict showcases for the United States is something it doesn't want to face up to. The US doesn't want to acknowledge that it's lost the moral authority to intervene in the world's problems anymore and worse, it doesn't want to acknowledge that the blame is squarely with the policy makers and I'll tell you why: Those guys that committed the massacre are children. If not biologically, then ethically and emotionally.
They are not psychologically equipped or prepared to face what they do day in and day out and as a result, they are becoming trigger-happy. They live in a world where their enemy looks completely innocuous before they explode or pull a gun. They, in turn, become murderous as a survival mechanism.
Couple this with the tension of wartime activities and the reality of what happens when people have guns in their hands, and this is what you get.
No one in the Capital or in the Joint Chiefs seem to think that psychological attention needs to be paid to the people we send out there to make sure they can make good decisions and that they aren't damaged to uselessness by what they experience. They don't prepare them and they don't de-condition them. We apparently learned little from Vietnam.
While the immediate fault still and always lies with the killers, nearly equal blame can be laid at the feet of those who treat them like fucking hammers. They are not, and never will be, tools. Rather, they shouldn't be, but they are.
No one on the Hill cares about them. Despite sharing culpability, this will be coined an isolated incident and swept under the rug as quickly as possible.
Killing in the Name of...
Wanna be freaked out? Read this. Then come back here.
I play video games religously. I love them. I believe in video games - even violent ones - as a legitimate form of entertainment. I don't believe that video games make people violent and I don't believe that video games are inherently corrupting or brain-dead.
In point of fact, I assert that video games are like anything else. Used as a form of entertainment, they are no better or worse than any other sort of entertainment.
Even before games developed the level of verisimilitude they have now, people opposed them for being violent and simulationist. The Army even has a shooter they use to indoctrinate or evoke interest, depending on your political and social stance, lending credence to the ideas that video games can be used to train and/or indoctrinate.
Lt. Col. David Gross wrote an engaging book called On Killing that dealt in some part with what it takes to produce killers. While I disagree with a number of his assertions, the data he provides is stunning. I recommend it.
So when I found this article (sent to me by a friend), I tried to step back and look at it simply as a video game. But as I sifted the details and read the statements by the creators, it all got much darker.
When you read interviews with mainstream video game designers and publishers, they expound on the story, the characters, the options and the fantasy. They discuss their creations in ways not unlike authors or directors with stories to tell. Even when the production is laden with meaning, they first and foremost want to entertain.
It's fairly clear that this is little more than hate-propaganda wrapped inside a video game. Certainly some will say that all video games including violence peddle an agenda of one sort or other, but this is an order of magnitude more...dangerous. The express purpose of this game is indoctrination. The offensive content and gameplay (murdering anyone who disagrees with your God-given mandate) are designed to reinforce dogmatic intolerance and through the endorsement of the clergy plant the seed of violence as acceptable and desirable.
Certainly I'm treading dangerously close to the idiots who make decisions about how I should parent and what forms of entertainment are acceptable. I recognize this. There is, I believe, a stark difference.
This game and others like it, as peddled by the Aryan Nations supporters and their ilk (search on White Law and Ethnic Cleansing), spread a very real message of hate and intolerance. Most games have enemies like mercenaries, fascist state security, monsters and animals and when they include moral grey areas they do just that, showing you that the decision you make in the context of the game is a difficult one or at least one that is driven by motivations that can be seen as good or bad. Most games do not make absolutist moral statements concerning the belief systems of others and most games certainly do not pretend to be anything more than entertainment.
I suppose we should be glad we can see these people for the violent misanthropes they apparently are. I, for one, am disturbed by the implications of the game's potential success.
I play video games religously. I love them. I believe in video games - even violent ones - as a legitimate form of entertainment. I don't believe that video games make people violent and I don't believe that video games are inherently corrupting or brain-dead.
In point of fact, I assert that video games are like anything else. Used as a form of entertainment, they are no better or worse than any other sort of entertainment.
Even before games developed the level of verisimilitude they have now, people opposed them for being violent and simulationist. The Army even has a shooter they use to indoctrinate or evoke interest, depending on your political and social stance, lending credence to the ideas that video games can be used to train and/or indoctrinate.
Lt. Col. David Gross wrote an engaging book called On Killing that dealt in some part with what it takes to produce killers. While I disagree with a number of his assertions, the data he provides is stunning. I recommend it.
So when I found this article (sent to me by a friend), I tried to step back and look at it simply as a video game. But as I sifted the details and read the statements by the creators, it all got much darker.
When you read interviews with mainstream video game designers and publishers, they expound on the story, the characters, the options and the fantasy. They discuss their creations in ways not unlike authors or directors with stories to tell. Even when the production is laden with meaning, they first and foremost want to entertain.
It's fairly clear that this is little more than hate-propaganda wrapped inside a video game. Certainly some will say that all video games including violence peddle an agenda of one sort or other, but this is an order of magnitude more...dangerous. The express purpose of this game is indoctrination. The offensive content and gameplay (murdering anyone who disagrees with your God-given mandate) are designed to reinforce dogmatic intolerance and through the endorsement of the clergy plant the seed of violence as acceptable and desirable.
Certainly I'm treading dangerously close to the idiots who make decisions about how I should parent and what forms of entertainment are acceptable. I recognize this. There is, I believe, a stark difference.
This game and others like it, as peddled by the Aryan Nations supporters and their ilk (search on White Law and Ethnic Cleansing), spread a very real message of hate and intolerance. Most games have enemies like mercenaries, fascist state security, monsters and animals and when they include moral grey areas they do just that, showing you that the decision you make in the context of the game is a difficult one or at least one that is driven by motivations that can be seen as good or bad. Most games do not make absolutist moral statements concerning the belief systems of others and most games certainly do not pretend to be anything more than entertainment.
I suppose we should be glad we can see these people for the violent misanthropes they apparently are. I, for one, am disturbed by the implications of the game's potential success.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Hero
Bush's long reign of violence is set to continue, if the markers are accurate.
Once I would have dismissed claims of the United States invading Iran as fanciful stupidity. What would we stand to gain in relation to what we stand to lose in that arena? Conspiracy theorists have always talked about our orchestration of the invasions of other countries, sometimes with justification or proof but most often only with conjecture and that's how these claims would have been taken 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago.
Before the United States stepped into Iraq for the second Gulf War, I was sure of my convictions that the United States - no matter who was at the helm - would never violate the sovereignty of another nation without provocation. I always pointed at Gulf I where the invasion was prompted by Iraq's own invasion of Kuwait, an ally of ours. That was a war of liberation and it was fought for a good cause if any war can be. We stopped when the international community said to stop and we did what we could to curtail future military adventures by the Warlord of Baghdad.
After the towers fell, we rode into Afghanistan to take the fight to those most directly responsible. While debatable, the trail of evidence here seems solid and the expedition mostly successful.
All was still fine in my head. We hadn't overstepped propriety with regard to sovereignty or thumbed our nose at our allies and while we were rapidly losing our much-vaunted freedoms, our problems were internal.
That all changed when Bush's rhetoric became action and the military rolled into Iraq, not stopping until Baghdad - one of the most ancient and fantastic cities in the world - had fallen. Justification for the war, tenuous at best before it had launched, evaporated and turned into a manhunt for a dictator who had already been emasculated.
Suddenly, all pretense of America's greatness came crashing down. Certainly we are still unmatched on the battlefield (or is it merely that we fight only those we know we can beat?) but where we once enjoyed the sanctity of our beliefs in democracy and justice there stood instead a hegemonic and dictatorial aggressor piloted by a sub-literate ape with a conqueror fetish.
It is clear now that George Bush Jr. desires little more than to pave his way to history in the blood of hyperbolic enemies. Like his father, he speaks in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, but unlike his father he has no grasp on the realities of the world.
Indeed, his own father uttered this oft-overlooked phrase:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
It is a comment he has ignored with the tenacity of a teenager set on defying his father just to prove his independence. He has steadfastly ignored his failing public approval, educated criticisms, international censure, and his father's advice to set out on escapades that risk not his life, but the lives of others for his own self-aggrandizement.
To characterize any of the moves he's made since the invasion of Afghanistan as anything but selfish and personal is ridiculous in the extreme. He personalized the invasion of Iraq while also couching it in terms of non-existent terrorism and at the same time, set the stage for future developments when he made his infantile 'Axis of Evil' comments. Comments that included, not accidentally, Iran.
Prior to all this craziness in the Middle East, my only exposure to Iran had been the hostage crisis during Carter's tenure while I was a child, and a girl I knew in high school who was an Iranian immigrant. I looked at Iran a lot like Russia at the time and I only wondered why they hated America so much. I harbored no ill-will than I can recall. The girl was another story entirely. She was pretty, smart, friendly and really American. Yet, she was also proudly Iranian and did a lot to educate me.
When I separated from the Air Force, I met a man who had spent his teenage years in Iran with his father who moved there for work. He did even more to show me the budding progressive liberal movements that existed there, and during the 90s I watched the country fairly often to see what was happening.
So for me, Iran has never been an evil nation, rather one that needs ideological and political support, not condemnation or criminalization, actions that only serve to lend them ammunition for rhetoric, justification for conservatism.
Part of being an adult is recognizing that others are going to disagree with you and finding ways to cope that don't involve a fist. You quickly learn that violence is a path rewarded only with more violence and that to resort to it means you have become incapable of operating or competing in the arenas of discourse and debate.
In terms of nations, fists become armies. Like fists, armies don't change minds or hearts. Like fists, armies encourage more of the same. In the end all we are left with is pain and blood.
An invasion of Iran will certainly make the primate in office feel quite masculine. After all, he is rapidly becoming one of the most successful conquerors of the modern world and there's little to hold him back with his one re-election under his belt. He can retire from office and say to himself, "I have secured the United States from foreign aggression and protected the people of this great nation. I have driven back the terrorists and defended the freedoms of America and the free world. I have conquered where my father failed. I am a great hero to this nation."
In every case he will be wrong and the rest of us will pay the price of his arrogance for years to come.
Check out what Iranian Americans are doing to prevent war with Iran: Iranian-Americans and a War on Iran.
Once I would have dismissed claims of the United States invading Iran as fanciful stupidity. What would we stand to gain in relation to what we stand to lose in that arena? Conspiracy theorists have always talked about our orchestration of the invasions of other countries, sometimes with justification or proof but most often only with conjecture and that's how these claims would have been taken 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago.
Before the United States stepped into Iraq for the second Gulf War, I was sure of my convictions that the United States - no matter who was at the helm - would never violate the sovereignty of another nation without provocation. I always pointed at Gulf I where the invasion was prompted by Iraq's own invasion of Kuwait, an ally of ours. That was a war of liberation and it was fought for a good cause if any war can be. We stopped when the international community said to stop and we did what we could to curtail future military adventures by the Warlord of Baghdad.
After the towers fell, we rode into Afghanistan to take the fight to those most directly responsible. While debatable, the trail of evidence here seems solid and the expedition mostly successful.
All was still fine in my head. We hadn't overstepped propriety with regard to sovereignty or thumbed our nose at our allies and while we were rapidly losing our much-vaunted freedoms, our problems were internal.
That all changed when Bush's rhetoric became action and the military rolled into Iraq, not stopping until Baghdad - one of the most ancient and fantastic cities in the world - had fallen. Justification for the war, tenuous at best before it had launched, evaporated and turned into a manhunt for a dictator who had already been emasculated.
Suddenly, all pretense of America's greatness came crashing down. Certainly we are still unmatched on the battlefield (or is it merely that we fight only those we know we can beat?) but where we once enjoyed the sanctity of our beliefs in democracy and justice there stood instead a hegemonic and dictatorial aggressor piloted by a sub-literate ape with a conqueror fetish.
It is clear now that George Bush Jr. desires little more than to pave his way to history in the blood of hyperbolic enemies. Like his father, he speaks in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, but unlike his father he has no grasp on the realities of the world.
Indeed, his own father uttered this oft-overlooked phrase:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
It is a comment he has ignored with the tenacity of a teenager set on defying his father just to prove his independence. He has steadfastly ignored his failing public approval, educated criticisms, international censure, and his father's advice to set out on escapades that risk not his life, but the lives of others for his own self-aggrandizement.
To characterize any of the moves he's made since the invasion of Afghanistan as anything but selfish and personal is ridiculous in the extreme. He personalized the invasion of Iraq while also couching it in terms of non-existent terrorism and at the same time, set the stage for future developments when he made his infantile 'Axis of Evil' comments. Comments that included, not accidentally, Iran.
Prior to all this craziness in the Middle East, my only exposure to Iran had been the hostage crisis during Carter's tenure while I was a child, and a girl I knew in high school who was an Iranian immigrant. I looked at Iran a lot like Russia at the time and I only wondered why they hated America so much. I harbored no ill-will than I can recall. The girl was another story entirely. She was pretty, smart, friendly and really American. Yet, she was also proudly Iranian and did a lot to educate me.
When I separated from the Air Force, I met a man who had spent his teenage years in Iran with his father who moved there for work. He did even more to show me the budding progressive liberal movements that existed there, and during the 90s I watched the country fairly often to see what was happening.
So for me, Iran has never been an evil nation, rather one that needs ideological and political support, not condemnation or criminalization, actions that only serve to lend them ammunition for rhetoric, justification for conservatism.
Part of being an adult is recognizing that others are going to disagree with you and finding ways to cope that don't involve a fist. You quickly learn that violence is a path rewarded only with more violence and that to resort to it means you have become incapable of operating or competing in the arenas of discourse and debate.
In terms of nations, fists become armies. Like fists, armies don't change minds or hearts. Like fists, armies encourage more of the same. In the end all we are left with is pain and blood.
An invasion of Iran will certainly make the primate in office feel quite masculine. After all, he is rapidly becoming one of the most successful conquerors of the modern world and there's little to hold him back with his one re-election under his belt. He can retire from office and say to himself, "I have secured the United States from foreign aggression and protected the people of this great nation. I have driven back the terrorists and defended the freedoms of America and the free world. I have conquered where my father failed. I am a great hero to this nation."
In every case he will be wrong and the rest of us will pay the price of his arrogance for years to come.
Check out what Iranian Americans are doing to prevent war with Iran: Iranian-Americans and a War on Iran.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Ride the Lightning
Throughout recorded history, individuals have existed whose crimes transcended imagination, whose brutality has shocked nations, whose spectral terror has haunted generations. Their names resound through our collective consciousness: John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, the Harps, Gille de Rais, the Boston Strangler, Jack the Ripper, Muhammed and Malvo. They prey upon the weak, the unsuspecting, the convenient.
They are the inter-species predators that live among us, at once a part of us and apart from us. The question arises with what to do with them when we catch them. Certainly it would smack of a suppressed survival instinct to let them go, to let them continue because it is the natural order of things, so the question becomes, “What do we do with them?”
A common trend has been execution. Throughout recorded history, executions have taken place for a variety of offenses ranging from burglary to treason. Cultural trends play a part in the crimes so punished and the methods used to carry out the sentence. Some methods used are and have been: burning, crucifixion, decapitation, drowning, electrocution, firing squad, gassing, hanging, impaling, lethal injection, stoning and the use of animals. Other methods of varied cruelty or humanity have also been employed.
During the years of 747 and 759, China banned the death penalty, and is the first recorded nation to do so. They did, however, reinstate it as can be seen in present-day China. China is also credited with the second-highest rate of executions per capita, based on Amnesty International’s numbers. Some claim those numbers are low.
The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was the first nation to permanently abolish capital punishment in late 1786. The Duke was inspired by a book called On Crimes and Punishments that questioned the value of torture and execution to society at large. To this day, the region of Tuscany celebrates November 30th as a holiday.
Later, even more drastic steps would be taken in the legal arena concerning capital punishment. In 1949, West Germany and Costa Rica both took the step of banning capital punishment in their constitutions, laying the precedent in the framework of their legal and political systems.
Other countries, such as the United States, much of Asia and the Middle East still maintain the option of execution with regard to what are deemed the worst of criminals. In the United States, individual states are allowed to handle the legality of capital punishment and hence, some parts of the United States practice capital punishment while other parts do not. The Federal government retains the ability to employ it, however it is rarely utilized.
Some countries such as Brazil and Argentina maintain the death penalty in only very specific and rare circumstances.
In countries where the death penalty is employed, some countries allow the execution of minors, while others do not. The definition of a minor also varies. In the United States, it is individuals under the age of 18 while in Japan it is individuals under the age of 20.
But the question is not about whether or not it has been done, to whom, and how. The question to us today is: should we?
Suppose we assume we shouldn't. The simplest and most straightforward argument put forth is that killing is inherently wrong. Since executions are a form of killing, the logic goes, they are also wrong. Fingers are pointed to such works as the Bible and its Ten Commandments, Jesus' law of love and the seminal work of Cesare Beccaria, also said to have influenced the development of Utilitarianism.
Many of the methods used in the execution of criminals and prisoners have also been widely criticized as inhumane. At its simplest, the denial of life to anyone is often said to be inhumane, but many of the methods used (including modern methods such as lethal injection) are and have been tortuous and imprecise. Those bringing this argument ask us to consider the ramifications of a botched beheading, lethal injection, or the prospect of being picked apart with tools or animals. The very Constitution of the United States along with the writings of John Locke[1] (who can be said to have inspired parts of the Constitution) make clear references to the inhumane treatment of criminals and prisoners and that we, as a people, should eschew such things.
Human elements are also commonly cited as a reason the death penalty should be abolished.
People have been wrongly executed, with evidence clearing them coming to light only after their deaths, while still others have been exonerated sometimes only minutes before their appointed time of execution. Anecdotally, the numbers could be very high, given the number of exonerations and convictions that have arisen from the advent of DNA testing and other advanced forensics.
Public defense is often used in the case of defendants who cannot afford their own attorneys. These attorneys are often seen as simply mediocre and unsuited to compete with those who are handling the prosecution, leading to a skewed rate of conviction.
In some places, execution is used punitively. The PRC is said to utilize capital punishment for this reason rather liberally, as are many Middle Eastern countries. Reasoning follows that if it occurs there, it could be done here such as in the case of Randall Adams where the police framed him knowing the difficulty of convicting and executing a minor.
The cost of keeping a prisoner on death row is also cited. Simply listing the cost of the initial trial in Kansas gives us a number of approximately $508,000, 16 times the cost of a non-capital case. Appeals are said to reach 21 times the cost of other appeals. Indiana’s Criminal Law Study Commission has discovered that a death sentence is 38% more costly overall than a life sentence. Additionally, supporting earlier arguments, 20% of all capital convictions are overturned and given life sentences.
Several Supreme Court justices have come, over the life of their appointments, to see the death penalty as ineffective and possibly flawed. Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell are two such examples. More recently, Sandra Day O’Connor stated, “If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed…”
Contrarily, there are also many arguments in favor of capital punishment.
Execution is an efficient way of dealing certain types of criminals. The punishment is, after all, permanent and that offender can never again commit the crimes that incurred the wrath of society. In areas where it is still practiced, it enjoys democratic (though not always popular) support.
Capital punishment is a statement of how the society in question views the severity of the crimes in question. Crimes a people are willing to execute for are obviously the most heinous and severe (or should be). In some ways, it demonstrates the state’s willingness to protect its citizenry from criminal elements. By showing that the state is willing and able to take the life of an offender for doing so to other citizens, the state assures its citizens that it cares for them and tries to protect them.
The pursuit of justice is, perhaps, the most cited reason for the implementation or retention of the death penalty. While there is no way to restore what was lost in the commission of a crime that leads to a death penalty conviction, the closest approximation is the retribution of death. Since the United States doesn’t allow for torture (implied in the adage of the punishment fitting the crime in many capital cases), the only reasonable alternative allowed to victims and states is execution.
Deterrence is cited as well. If a crime may land you in the electric chair, you are far less likely to commit the crime in question. Further murders of other innocents are also prevented by the assurance that the individual to be executed is never released or escapes.
If the death penalty were abolished, it is said we could reasonably expect the following behaviors:
First, inmates sentenced to life in prison would feel no compelling reason to avoid killing one another. Prison is a violent place and murders are already more common than they ought to be, but by denying the authorities the ability to take them permanently out of circulation, the state enables inmates to perpetuate violence upon each other with little to no impediment.
Secondly, the rule of law loses much of its authority when capital punishment is not an option. People become more likely to take upon themselves the burden of retribution and justice for the most heinous of crimes. Vigilantism and other escalating and violent methods of exacting personal justice may rise as a result.
Our decisions about capital punishment reflect how we feel about the basic nature and value of human life. At some point we must step back and examine the innate hypocrisy of the support of the death penalty. If - as so many of us assert - we place inherent value on human life, why do we feel it is appropriate to value one life differently than another?
Certainly scripture of all stripes values life based on belief and unbelief so in many cultures people are already conditioned to see some lives as worth more than others. Murder and other sins that lead to the legal end of capital punishment serve as a method by which people are comfortable devaluing the lives of those they wish to see executed.
We can look close to home in most cases and find a situation where we'd love to see someone die for their crimes, crimes so heinous as to tacitly amount to a willful surrender of the right to life.
There was a man who once worked for me named Britt Ripkowski. He was weird and he was a bit maladjusted socially, but never once did I consider him to be dangerous. Yet, shortly after he moved on in the company, the sordid details of his crime surfaced. Here is a man who wantonly and wilfully murdered a young woman and a very small child. Every fibre of my being wants him to pay in blood for that.
The question I must ask myself is if I am willing to support a system where I will get my wish, the price for which is the risk of executing the innocent. People in prison have been exonerated repeatedly based on new evidence. How many have wrongfully made it to the executioner?
If the answer is even one, it is too many.
Read more:
Wikipedia
Death Penalty Information Center
The New American
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[1] Interestingly, John Locke was a supporter of capital punishment.
They are the inter-species predators that live among us, at once a part of us and apart from us. The question arises with what to do with them when we catch them. Certainly it would smack of a suppressed survival instinct to let them go, to let them continue because it is the natural order of things, so the question becomes, “What do we do with them?”
A common trend has been execution. Throughout recorded history, executions have taken place for a variety of offenses ranging from burglary to treason. Cultural trends play a part in the crimes so punished and the methods used to carry out the sentence. Some methods used are and have been: burning, crucifixion, decapitation, drowning, electrocution, firing squad, gassing, hanging, impaling, lethal injection, stoning and the use of animals. Other methods of varied cruelty or humanity have also been employed.
During the years of 747 and 759, China banned the death penalty, and is the first recorded nation to do so. They did, however, reinstate it as can be seen in present-day China. China is also credited with the second-highest rate of executions per capita, based on Amnesty International’s numbers. Some claim those numbers are low.
The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was the first nation to permanently abolish capital punishment in late 1786. The Duke was inspired by a book called On Crimes and Punishments that questioned the value of torture and execution to society at large. To this day, the region of Tuscany celebrates November 30th as a holiday.
Later, even more drastic steps would be taken in the legal arena concerning capital punishment. In 1949, West Germany and Costa Rica both took the step of banning capital punishment in their constitutions, laying the precedent in the framework of their legal and political systems.
Other countries, such as the United States, much of Asia and the Middle East still maintain the option of execution with regard to what are deemed the worst of criminals. In the United States, individual states are allowed to handle the legality of capital punishment and hence, some parts of the United States practice capital punishment while other parts do not. The Federal government retains the ability to employ it, however it is rarely utilized.
Some countries such as Brazil and Argentina maintain the death penalty in only very specific and rare circumstances.
In countries where the death penalty is employed, some countries allow the execution of minors, while others do not. The definition of a minor also varies. In the United States, it is individuals under the age of 18 while in Japan it is individuals under the age of 20.
But the question is not about whether or not it has been done, to whom, and how. The question to us today is: should we?
Suppose we assume we shouldn't. The simplest and most straightforward argument put forth is that killing is inherently wrong. Since executions are a form of killing, the logic goes, they are also wrong. Fingers are pointed to such works as the Bible and its Ten Commandments, Jesus' law of love and the seminal work of Cesare Beccaria, also said to have influenced the development of Utilitarianism.
Many of the methods used in the execution of criminals and prisoners have also been widely criticized as inhumane. At its simplest, the denial of life to anyone is often said to be inhumane, but many of the methods used (including modern methods such as lethal injection) are and have been tortuous and imprecise. Those bringing this argument ask us to consider the ramifications of a botched beheading, lethal injection, or the prospect of being picked apart with tools or animals. The very Constitution of the United States along with the writings of John Locke[1] (who can be said to have inspired parts of the Constitution) make clear references to the inhumane treatment of criminals and prisoners and that we, as a people, should eschew such things.
Human elements are also commonly cited as a reason the death penalty should be abolished.
People have been wrongly executed, with evidence clearing them coming to light only after their deaths, while still others have been exonerated sometimes only minutes before their appointed time of execution. Anecdotally, the numbers could be very high, given the number of exonerations and convictions that have arisen from the advent of DNA testing and other advanced forensics.
Public defense is often used in the case of defendants who cannot afford their own attorneys. These attorneys are often seen as simply mediocre and unsuited to compete with those who are handling the prosecution, leading to a skewed rate of conviction.
In some places, execution is used punitively. The PRC is said to utilize capital punishment for this reason rather liberally, as are many Middle Eastern countries. Reasoning follows that if it occurs there, it could be done here such as in the case of Randall Adams where the police framed him knowing the difficulty of convicting and executing a minor.
The cost of keeping a prisoner on death row is also cited. Simply listing the cost of the initial trial in Kansas gives us a number of approximately $508,000, 16 times the cost of a non-capital case. Appeals are said to reach 21 times the cost of other appeals. Indiana’s Criminal Law Study Commission has discovered that a death sentence is 38% more costly overall than a life sentence. Additionally, supporting earlier arguments, 20% of all capital convictions are overturned and given life sentences.
Several Supreme Court justices have come, over the life of their appointments, to see the death penalty as ineffective and possibly flawed. Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell are two such examples. More recently, Sandra Day O’Connor stated, “If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed…”
Contrarily, there are also many arguments in favor of capital punishment.
Execution is an efficient way of dealing certain types of criminals. The punishment is, after all, permanent and that offender can never again commit the crimes that incurred the wrath of society. In areas where it is still practiced, it enjoys democratic (though not always popular) support.
Capital punishment is a statement of how the society in question views the severity of the crimes in question. Crimes a people are willing to execute for are obviously the most heinous and severe (or should be). In some ways, it demonstrates the state’s willingness to protect its citizenry from criminal elements. By showing that the state is willing and able to take the life of an offender for doing so to other citizens, the state assures its citizens that it cares for them and tries to protect them.
The pursuit of justice is, perhaps, the most cited reason for the implementation or retention of the death penalty. While there is no way to restore what was lost in the commission of a crime that leads to a death penalty conviction, the closest approximation is the retribution of death. Since the United States doesn’t allow for torture (implied in the adage of the punishment fitting the crime in many capital cases), the only reasonable alternative allowed to victims and states is execution.
Deterrence is cited as well. If a crime may land you in the electric chair, you are far less likely to commit the crime in question. Further murders of other innocents are also prevented by the assurance that the individual to be executed is never released or escapes.
If the death penalty were abolished, it is said we could reasonably expect the following behaviors:
First, inmates sentenced to life in prison would feel no compelling reason to avoid killing one another. Prison is a violent place and murders are already more common than they ought to be, but by denying the authorities the ability to take them permanently out of circulation, the state enables inmates to perpetuate violence upon each other with little to no impediment.
Secondly, the rule of law loses much of its authority when capital punishment is not an option. People become more likely to take upon themselves the burden of retribution and justice for the most heinous of crimes. Vigilantism and other escalating and violent methods of exacting personal justice may rise as a result.
Our decisions about capital punishment reflect how we feel about the basic nature and value of human life. At some point we must step back and examine the innate hypocrisy of the support of the death penalty. If - as so many of us assert - we place inherent value on human life, why do we feel it is appropriate to value one life differently than another?
Certainly scripture of all stripes values life based on belief and unbelief so in many cultures people are already conditioned to see some lives as worth more than others. Murder and other sins that lead to the legal end of capital punishment serve as a method by which people are comfortable devaluing the lives of those they wish to see executed.
We can look close to home in most cases and find a situation where we'd love to see someone die for their crimes, crimes so heinous as to tacitly amount to a willful surrender of the right to life.
There was a man who once worked for me named Britt Ripkowski. He was weird and he was a bit maladjusted socially, but never once did I consider him to be dangerous. Yet, shortly after he moved on in the company, the sordid details of his crime surfaced. Here is a man who wantonly and wilfully murdered a young woman and a very small child. Every fibre of my being wants him to pay in blood for that.
The question I must ask myself is if I am willing to support a system where I will get my wish, the price for which is the risk of executing the innocent. People in prison have been exonerated repeatedly based on new evidence. How many have wrongfully made it to the executioner?
If the answer is even one, it is too many.
Read more:
Wikipedia
Death Penalty Information Center
The New American
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[1] Interestingly, John Locke was a supporter of capital punishment.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Hall of Mirrors
The contents of this article are terrifying and illustrative.
Often seen as a conflict of bloody misunderstanding and intolerance, the War on Terror/Jihad is intent on showing us the ugliest facets humanity has to offer. It is also far more complex than any 'blog could possibly illustrate due to its roots in political movements that absorbed religious fanaticism as a tool for change within its own society all through the modern showdown with men whose forces and causes we (the West - don't think for an instant that just because you aren't American your country isn't complicit) once supported.
The current state of the Jihad and the War on Terror shows us the reach of hate, and the bitter aftertaste of fear.
I will begin with my own beam before I pluck at the Middle Eastern mote, as it were. Rumsfeld has long been both lauded and reviled over the last 50 years. In spite of the initial appeal of taking both Afghanistan and Iraq with as few soldiers as possible (alternately seen as both forward-thinking and short-sighted), there are many things he has done to both offend and abuse the American soldier.
In the Defense Review, Rumsfeld cites several worrisome activities. While in and of themselves, they make perfect tactical and strategic sense, some seem to flout our responsibilities to the international community, law, and democracy.
For instance, it makes sense that the military would be restructured further to adapt to the current world environs and that the military should never be allowed to become complacent.
But it is passive-aggressive imperialist doctrine to state categorically that we plan to conduct war in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities. Rather than admit that we must first pursue diplomatic and political solutions to cases where a country offers a safe haven to those we oppose, the document expresses the arrogance of power. Few countries would dare march an army into a neutral or allied country with the intent of waging war on a specific segment of those within those borders. Even in cases where the country being violated may be politically belligerent, such an action is patently an act of war not only on the target but on its host.
Yes, yes, a solid case can be made in the interest of security, but the broad strokes used to outline this doctrine send the message to the world that we will do as we please without regard to treaty, law, or the long-term ramifications of such bellicose activity. Would the United States stand for another country doing the same to it? The answer to that hardly warrants asking.
The bits reproduced read like an imperialist manifesto. Certainly it can be taken at face value as reorganization and recognition of the changing theatre the military occupies, but it could also be seen as similar to the British Navigation Act of 1651 - as a vehicle for empire - or the United States' own Manifest Destiny.
It also lays out the presumption that this is a conflict that can be won through violence, an assertion the article's author correctly disputes.
So let's move on to everyone's favorite Mastermind: Osama bin-Laden.
What we see here is far less sophisticated in terms of details but no less sophisticated in its ability to influence those he intends to reach. His points are full of spurious and fallacious logic, arrays virtually the entire world as enemies of Islam, and even promotes internal religious strife and violence.
Most disturbing, though, is his refusal to acknowledge the reality of dissent. Instead, Osama bin-Laden takes the ethical stance that because our leaders are democratically elected, we are responsible for everything they do. From a very simplistic standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Our leaders are intended to represent our will. The problem is that no government actually works this way. Ideally, certainly, but we do not live in that sort of world.
His statements as reproduced in the article linked above imply genocide. If you are not with us, you are against us...sound familiar? The absolutism of his hate is staggering.
Sadly, this is a common - if lamentable - sentiment among religious fanatics and in this way, Osama bin-Laden and George W. Bush (and no less importantly, their supporters) don't seem much different, and that is frightening.
Often seen as a conflict of bloody misunderstanding and intolerance, the War on Terror/Jihad is intent on showing us the ugliest facets humanity has to offer. It is also far more complex than any 'blog could possibly illustrate due to its roots in political movements that absorbed religious fanaticism as a tool for change within its own society all through the modern showdown with men whose forces and causes we (the West - don't think for an instant that just because you aren't American your country isn't complicit) once supported.
The current state of the Jihad and the War on Terror shows us the reach of hate, and the bitter aftertaste of fear.
I will begin with my own beam before I pluck at the Middle Eastern mote, as it were. Rumsfeld has long been both lauded and reviled over the last 50 years. In spite of the initial appeal of taking both Afghanistan and Iraq with as few soldiers as possible (alternately seen as both forward-thinking and short-sighted), there are many things he has done to both offend and abuse the American soldier.
In the Defense Review, Rumsfeld cites several worrisome activities. While in and of themselves, they make perfect tactical and strategic sense, some seem to flout our responsibilities to the international community, law, and democracy.
For instance, it makes sense that the military would be restructured further to adapt to the current world environs and that the military should never be allowed to become complacent.
But it is passive-aggressive imperialist doctrine to state categorically that we plan to conduct war in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities. Rather than admit that we must first pursue diplomatic and political solutions to cases where a country offers a safe haven to those we oppose, the document expresses the arrogance of power. Few countries would dare march an army into a neutral or allied country with the intent of waging war on a specific segment of those within those borders. Even in cases where the country being violated may be politically belligerent, such an action is patently an act of war not only on the target but on its host.
Yes, yes, a solid case can be made in the interest of security, but the broad strokes used to outline this doctrine send the message to the world that we will do as we please without regard to treaty, law, or the long-term ramifications of such bellicose activity. Would the United States stand for another country doing the same to it? The answer to that hardly warrants asking.
The bits reproduced read like an imperialist manifesto. Certainly it can be taken at face value as reorganization and recognition of the changing theatre the military occupies, but it could also be seen as similar to the British Navigation Act of 1651 - as a vehicle for empire - or the United States' own Manifest Destiny.
It also lays out the presumption that this is a conflict that can be won through violence, an assertion the article's author correctly disputes.
So let's move on to everyone's favorite Mastermind: Osama bin-Laden.
What we see here is far less sophisticated in terms of details but no less sophisticated in its ability to influence those he intends to reach. His points are full of spurious and fallacious logic, arrays virtually the entire world as enemies of Islam, and even promotes internal religious strife and violence.
Most disturbing, though, is his refusal to acknowledge the reality of dissent. Instead, Osama bin-Laden takes the ethical stance that because our leaders are democratically elected, we are responsible for everything they do. From a very simplistic standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Our leaders are intended to represent our will. The problem is that no government actually works this way. Ideally, certainly, but we do not live in that sort of world.
His statements as reproduced in the article linked above imply genocide. If you are not with us, you are against us...sound familiar? The absolutism of his hate is staggering.
Sadly, this is a common - if lamentable - sentiment among religious fanatics and in this way, Osama bin-Laden and George W. Bush (and no less importantly, their supporters) don't seem much different, and that is frightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
