Above: August 7, 2008

Above: July 25, 2008
Vincent Bugliosi is an expert criminal prosecutor who has written the book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” He is famous for his work in the prosecution against Charles Manson. He believes a lawyer or justice department can successfully try and convict Bush (the man) for premeditated murder (whether of Saddam, Iraqis, or U.S. Soldiers) , based on various levels of deceit to start a war. While he will not move on his own, he has moved before this judiciary committee and has offered to be a special prosecutor to assist in a case if brought.

Above: June 11, 2008 ImpeachBush.org states: “The impeachment movement needs your help. Your generous donation will allow us to place more impeachment ads, help us cover the cost of impeachment petitions, stickers, placards, and fliers. Click here to donate today. Thanks to donations from people like you, we’ve already been able to place ImpeachBush ads in the New York Times, USA Today, and SF Chronicle.”

e 9, 2008Rep. Dennis Kucinich takes the floor of the House of Representatives, addressing 35 articles of impeachment he has drawn up against George W. Bush. Read the full articles at www.kucinich.us.

uary 16, 2008Rep. Robert Wexler has commited to expanding his “efforts to secure impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee for these new Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush,” backing Dennis Kucinich in holding the current administration accountable for at least 35 impeachable offenses against his position against congress, against foreign countries, and against the American people. Read more from Wexler’s position at www.wexlerforcongress.com

What I am is a conservative who shares some constitutionalist, libertarian, populist, conservationist, and once-republican ideals. I believe in the ideal of good stewardship.

What concerns me most is representation.

It is not that going to war is “mala in se", it is why, how, and whether or not it is a representative action of the desires of the people. It is fine for a man to act on principles and be stubborn about them, but not if he walks over the liberties of another while doing so. It is fine when a man sticks to his principles, but not when his job is to be a public representative of the people who elected him (those with the votes, rather than the donations). If he believes his job is to protect us with or without our approval, by means which were largely disapproved, then he has removed “we the people” from the entire debate of a “democracy". He has undermined the republic. When he refuses to acknowledge supreme court decisions by not opening an email (which may be seen to be as official as the “serving of a subpoena"), he has ignored the balances of power set in place to hold democracy together. How can he “bring democracy” to the world when he doesn’t believe in/ respect the system of government. When he acknowledges the definitions of what is deemed torture as given by the supreme court, he simply says, “that’s the law, the law is the law, but that’s not how I interpret it.” Then he continues to drag our country’s flag through the mud (in the eyes of our friends and foes alike), by ignoring the laws. When the one man who leads the country acts as if he is above the law, he is by definition a dictator (when not a king or monarch through hereditary succession). With regard, to the practice of torture (though a semantic argument would state that only certain acts are “legally defined torture"), the oppressive use of the declaration of “enemy combatants” on U.S. Citizens (denying them their 4th amendment constitutional rights and superceding criminal law), and denying law abiding (non-convicted) citizens their privacy, a leader would fit 3 definitions of an oppressive tyrant.

Representation is key. And not just that the majority of voters gets a face in an election, but that the democratic debate be on the table as open and free from agenda as possible. Yes, the majority of voters usually get their pick of who is in office. What they don’t get during the campaign and after the election, honest and clear news. It is an era of fact wars. Kerry supported the war in Iraq (a poll showed about 70% of those who voted for him thought he was in opposition to it). Iraq had no remotely direct connections to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers (after a confessed $23 million dollars spent on misinformation about this subject by the Bush administration, 30-50% of U.S. Americans still believe to this day that Saddam Hussein was involved -not based on facts, but on feelings or what they remember hearing the news). When all of this is the case (on only 2 issues), despite the average person even trying to pay attention to
politics and the news, they can not hope to have their views (not just their vote) represented in the “representative” government of the U.S..

Yes, I’m for small government, but more so, I’m for a representative government. As long as the government serves the will (not the good -as is elite theory) of the people, we will receive the most benefit. And when we make a mistake, at least our fate will be earned for ourselves, not by a greedy or power-hungry rogue leader. If the Iraq war was the peoples’ war, then let us go in and face the consequences. But when it is not the will of the people, change course or resign.

Congress, do your job. Hand the man his resignation, if he’s so determined to stay the course of death, destruction, and national bankruptcy. Your wallets only get fatter as the people get madder. One day you’ll find, “we are as mad as hell and we are not gonna take it anymore!”

ImpeachBush.org states: “The impeachment movement needs your help. Your generous donation will allow us to place more impeachment ads, help us cover the cost of impeacment petitions, stickers, placards, and flyers. Click here to donate today. Thanks to donations from people like you, we’ve already been able to place ImpeachBush ads in the New York Times, USA Today, and SF Chronicle.”

Captain James Yusef Yee is a third generation Chinese-American, and third generation soldier for the U.S. Armed Forces. His grandfather fought in World War II and his father served in the Vietnam conflict. Yee graduated from West Point in 1990, where his emphasized studies were in Air Defense Artillery and Nuclear Missiles. Although Yee was raised Lutheran, in 1991 he converted to Islam and even journeyed to Mecca. In January 2001, Yee became the tenth to twelfth Muslim Chaplain in the history of the U.S. Army. At Ft. Lewis Washington he taught Muslim education to soldiers who headed to Afghanistan or Iraq. He taught the Pillars of Islam, how to build bridges between faiths, how to recite the Quran, and how to speak Arabic.

In December of 2002 Yee was posted at Guantanamo Bay. His two roles were to advise camp commander on religious practices, and to serve as Chaplain to all Muslim soldiers, personnel, and 660 detainees (among them spoke Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, and French). Yee was one of the few who had free reign amongst the prisoners, but was always highly visible under supervision. Commanding Officers requested Yee’s assistance because detainees were finding ways to commit suicide; this made interrogations of those detainees impossible. Yee believed this was not because detainees were trying to hide information. Based on detainees’ stories of how they were tortured, he believes these were desperate acts toward release from spiritual torment brought upon by their captors. To solve the problems of the detainees and the interrogators Yee suggested some reforms. Specifically, he had cloth slings placed in top corners of individual holding pens in order to hold their Qurans high up and safe, which is the traditional respectful treatment. It is considered disrespectful to Allah to let the “Words of God” touch the ground. Yee also mediated the process of handling the Qurans, as they had been mistreated intentionally and unintentionally in “cell searches.” At Camp Delta he suggested the process of how the detainee would present and flip through the Quran, then would be pre-shackled through the bars, and his person searched as the steel mesh cage was opened. He achieved respect for the Quran and plausible security precautions to allow for it.

For all Yee’s successful work, he was accommodated by his supervisors, and after 10 months of his 12 month tour of duty, he was granted 2 weeks of “R & R” back home in the United States. Boarding the flight back to Jacksonville, Florida, Yee noticed an M.P. (military police) speaking to an officer. The officer motioned back at James Yee. Once they hit the ground on September 10, 2003, before being let off base, he was questioned about classified documents which were removed from the base. His person and possessions were searched. He had no knowledge of any documents, and none were found. Later he would hear that the NCIS and FBI reported having “found suspicious and classified documents on his person.” He was arrested without a stated cause (once documents were not found) and placed in a “3 pieced Suit” style of shackles. Blacked out goggles were put on his eyes and Industrial ear muffs were put on his ears. Although he was still allowed to smell, and potentially taste, these other restraints are a mild form of torture known as sensory deprivation. These techniques were used on him throughout his 76 days of solitary confinement at a Naval Brig in South Carolina.

After 11 days of incarceration, his family, wondering where he was, saw a report in the news, thanks to a Pentagon correspondent to the Washington Times. His name was mentioned as being held for suspicion of consorting in a “Three Man Spy Ring” in Guantanamo Bay. Over the upcoming weeks, his family contacted Eugene Fidel, a prominent civilian lawyer with experience in military courts. Fidel worked to get information on Captain Yee. Upon his “release” after 76 days, he was to be seen at a military tribunal, where he was to be charged with “Disobeying a Direct Order during Wartime”, punishable by death. At some point the charge was brought down to “Improper Handling of Classified Documents”, punishable by 14 years to life imprisonment. All charges were dropped because 1) there was no record of his arrest, although it was clear he had just been released from the arrest. 2) There was no investigation, and no case had even begun to be prepared, even after 76 days. 3) Upon request to see the evidence, classified or not, in order to establish Yee’s possession of the documents, none was to be offered. Thus all charges were dropped.

Yee was immediately reinstated, without explanation, apology, or the rest and relaxation he was promised. He finished up his last two months, and was given a medal for “Exceptional Meritorial Service” upon being honorable discharged. Yee does not hold a grudge, although he does not appreciate the lack of integrity expressed by the Armed Forces nonchalant attitude toward improper and inhumane treatment of soldiers (in this rare circumstance). And it makes him mad that the reason was most likely that someone frowned on his “sensitivity to prisoners.” He also expressed anger that he was taunted upon his arrest, such as “Chinese Taliban”, or “Slanty-Eyed Rag-Head.” He is a proud patriot of the United States of America who has served honorably for his country and his God. He is proud of his Chinese heritage and Islamic beliefs, and resents the racial hatred to his bloodline and religion. Although Yee hopes for the discontinuation of the practices of Guantanamo Bay, Yee would definitely serve again as Chaplain, or to teach military courses on “how to win hearts and minds” rather than on how to wage war.

For a long time now, many of our First and Second Amendment rights have been highly regulated. Thanks to the patriot act, we have also lost security of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. According to an L.A. federal district judge, the patriot act steps on the First Amendment protections by its vagueness in declaring “expert advice or assistance” to terrorists as a criminal activity. It infringes on the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unreasonable search and seizures, by changing the burden of “reason” and rerouting the decision from an impartial judge into the hands of an agent on the case that may be partial.

The Fifth Amendment protects our freedom from being “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The patriot act requires the attorney general to arrest aliens who are considered a “threat to national security,” and can hold them for up to seven days without charges. If the alien is an illegal immigrant, the Constitution does not apply; he or she can be held indefinitely. In our “War on Terror” the administration in charge has decided to ignore international law regarding Prisoners of War. According to Capt. Yee, because other countries have given us grief about the rights of “prisoners,” we are very careful in calling them detained “unlawful combatants” or “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. The administration defends this decision by stating that we are not fighting a nation, but terrorists. Terrorists do not play by any rules of war; they have attacked citizens, embassies, and soldiers. The problem here is that international law regarding POWs protects against torture. When we disregard “Rules of Engagement” or human rights protections, we hurt innocents, and collateral damage increases. We are no longer the good guys when this occurs; we have merely sunk to the level of our enemies.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of council or representation, as well as a trial by jury and unanimous decisions against criminal guilt. The patriot act inhibits the privacy assured by attorney-client relationship, and even prevents or restricts obtaining aid of a lawyer altogether. Any conversations that elicit “reasonable suspicion” to “further or facilitate” terrorist activities are now monitored. The Bush-Cheney administration has determined that U.S citizens can now be declared enemy combatants. Suspected terrorists will not be tried in civilian courts, but in U.S. military courts called military tribunals. Military tribunals do not use the same rules of evidence. If it is believed to be important to the case or decision, it is admissible without regard to the legality of how such information was obtained, and possibly without regard to the legitimacy of the evidence. They also only require a two-thirds panel agreement for a conviction. The military and administration believe it would be difficult to try certain matters of “intelligence” in a civilian criminal court without classified material becoming public. Also, they fear real terrorists being freed on technicalities.

Although Capt. Yee has been witness to, even subject to, many of the above perceived injustices, there is no clear path to recompense. The military is presumably immune to law suits due to the fact that fear of accountability beyond the chain of command may keep soldiers and officers from completing the tasks needed to fight and win wars, and keep our country safe from harm. Based on precedent set by 1950 Supreme Court ruling, Feres v. The United States, military members cannot “sue the U.S. Government for injuries resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces.” While there is a claim process, a service member may only reap the benefits of what the Department of Defense offers. That’s that. It has remained this way based on the Feres Doctrine for over fifty years.

The final topic of debate was the future of our country with regards to Guantanamo Bay. One of the lawyer panelists suggested that since all remaining candidates have spoken (vaguely) out about closing down Guantanamo, it will be gone within six months of the next election. One of the political science panelists thought this was a little naïve, stating that what generally happens is they close down the program and reopen it a little differently, or close it down where it is at, and re-open differently elsewhere. He said something to the affect of, “We make a lot of mistakes, but we learn from them. We won’t make the same mistake, just one very similar.” Capt. James Yee thought both of these views were highly optimistic. Based on the size of the buildings built, the vast amounts of work and money that went into securing the areas and building them to such quality, he believes those prisons aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. I lean towards Yee, but wasting money has not been a problem for military contractors. For all they care, we can knock it down tomorrow, and rebuild something else it its place -more work.

Social security tax inequities are a major problem for equality, because it is a high level income tax with an income ceiling. This ceiling is placed at $87,000, putting the majority of the burden of this tax on the taxpayers who are in need of the benefits. Basically, a conservative point of view would say that if its not actually going to act as welfare or equality, those people paying more and benefiting more may as well keep their money up front to invest it themselves. Although there is a graduated tax in our country, a flat tax, that taxes everything equally, would presumably achieve the greatest equality. This is a flat tax that is the same percent on income, capital gains, social security, Medicare, and more; none of them having deductions, credits, exemptions, or ceilings. This is a lofty goal, but far closer to the ideal than our current web of deceitful loopholes. Another problem pointed out about social security taxes is that they are borrowed from for uses other than for which they were intended -simply added to the general fund. This makes the purpose of the payment useless. We owe a lot to it, and we may never reap the benefits, but that’s what happens when you hand someone your money and ask them to take care of it for you. “A fool and his money are soon parted,” because there is no “distinction between trust funds and discretionary spending.” The text points out that if the wealthy paid their fair share there would be a large surplus of $85 billion to start paying off the 1 trillion owed into that fund. This would take another twelve years to repay at this rate.

Another criticism Z&N make about the tax code is the preferential treatment for homeowners. They make several cases in this text with similar arguments to the point that the government doesn’t need to “stimulate”, “encourage” or legislate a “free” market’s behavior. I don’t like that single people cannot have the final benefits that married people have. Men and women don’t need encouragement to get married; it has been a historically common trait for thousands of years. Plus, it is the money of the wage earners who pay into it, that should decide who benefits. This somewhat proves faulty representation, since it is obviously not in singles’, homosexuals’, or renters’ best interest to get the raw end of the deal when it comes to marriage or homeowner tax breaks. Z&N make the point that people already have the desire to own property, so the tax break isn’t meant to encourage it be done, but rather to reward them for behaving in a desirable way toward a certain type of ideal. This gives tax breaks to those wealthy enough to own property, when it should be giving tax breaks to people who need the break in order to afford to purchase property. The logic the tax breaks are sold upon is not sound, and is malignant in design.

The legislation of deductions for large luxury vehicles greatly troubles me. Hummers or Excursions, weighing 6,000 lbs, getting 8-12 mpg, and being a symbol of wealth, have no business getting subsidized. People do not need to be encouraged to show off, especially by throwing the peoples tax dollars their way. Let them show off with their own money, as they rev their own fortunes away. I’m not even sure that hybrid and environment friendly vehicles should be subsidized, as mentioned, but at least it has a positive goal for the community and the benefit of a healthy and technologically prosperous society.

I’m not nearly as judgmental as Z&N are about “runaway government pensions.” Obviously, any single person making over $80, 000 should be doing just fine, especially in a two-income household. But, $80, 000 would seem to me to be a wealthy wage for any family, and beneficial to society in allowing a parent to raise the child without a second income. I’m dreaming again. Anyone making over a certain amount, and then getting pensions far over what they need, is ridiculous. However, the only reason I like the federal government pay scale is that it takes cost of living into account, and it is one of the last empires which is somewhat free from the “Wal-mart-ization” of corporations, whose goal is to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of the workers. Also, a very interesting point made at the end of this section is Halliburton and Enron using shell games to dodge employee coverage; “of the 30 companies with the greatest shortfalls in employee pension funds, CEOs collected 59% more compensation than the median CEO.” This enflames my disdain for the “personhood of business” and the lack of criminal accountability held against executives.

Transnational or multinational corporations are one of the most scandalous entities in our capitalist society. A major tool they use “to shift profits out of, and expenses into, the United States” is called the transfer pricing shell game. This minimizes profits of their U.S.-based operations. The pricing shell refers to lying about the costs of items, or inappropriately charging for them, in order to move money from one country to another. No money is lost here, because there is one large company with many subsidiaries. One subsidiary can sell computers to another for pennies, and the other can sell printer paper back for millions, depending on where they want the profits according to taxation. Because the companies are international, Nations don’t have the authority to properly audit those companies (or so they think). So, we take their word that they are being honest. Z&N suggest the solution to this is the unitary method, through which taxes are calculated based upon company sales, assets, and payroll within the country. This is visible, determinable, and while still vulnerable to other loopholes, quickly becomes more honest and beneficial to American taxpayers.

This chapter also discusses the Cayman Islands and Bush’s support of terror. With the Cayman Islands, one can simply pay their corporation fees, establish their official address (but nothing else), and become a foreign company, while maintaining operations in the United States. What I’m not clear on is how beneficial this move would be, without getting cheaper labor, or having subsidiaries or places to hide money. Z&N claim that G.W. Bush weakened international treaties on money laundering, which effectively (though perhaps not intentionally) protects drug dealers and terrorists. This keeps them covert and active internationally, and provides them a base through which to successfully fund themselves. The reason stated for these actions, was to remove what U.S. corporations, who filled his campaign wallet, might consider “undue discomfort.”

Capital gains tax is what I see as the biggest subsidy of the rich. I could be wrong, but this is where fat cats make their money, hide their money, and don’t pay their fair share of taxes. I just learned a great deal about capital gains taxes, in my finance class, and in pursuit of analyzing candidates’ goals. When I heard about Huckabee’s “Flat Tax” proposal, I was mildly worried about its intent (not about his chances of election though). My understanding is that a flat tax would destroy our currently graduated tax. It would hurt homeowners, not that I care, because many people would lose deductions, which are valuable. Plus, the tax rate of this flat tax was very high (in any state that also had State Income Taxes). But, when I found out about his reduction for capital gains taxes, in order to “encourage investing”, I knew his idea was a built to shift the tax burden to the poor on several fronts. The man who was running on religious principles didn’t have servitude, caring for the poor, or “the first shall be last…” type of ideals in mind after all. This chapter of the text basically confirms my views on the inadequacies and misuse of the capital gains tax. The book “The Richest Man in Babylon” speaks of a prosperous and healthy nation, which is financially fair, and in it is pointed out that any fair nation taxes wealth on one front, or wealth and income on two equal fronts, but never income alone.

A friend of mine has a near-millionaire brother and multimillionaire parents who have complaints against capital gains taxes for stocks, as well as for second and third homes. However, my friend and his sister make between $12,000 and $35,000 as a dog sitter and pizza delivery guy. I explained to him that I believe his parents don’t have a leg to stand on in the complaint department, given that they are hardly taxed for the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars on second and third homes, while he is taxed much higher on his income, keeping him out of his first house. While he has similar “political values” as his parents, the political ideals he has been taught to hold to don’t match his interests, and won’t help him achieve the American dream.

The insurance loopholes, against terrorism, and for Wal-Mart employees are deplorable. The government needs to stop bailing out insurance companies. According to the right wingers, businesses have to be allowed to fail, or the free market system doesn’t work. But the left wingers have a point that it doesn’t set a good precedent that people be allowed to fail, because that failure affects others (usually through crime, and court and prison costs). I don’t know where to draw the line on letting insurance companies fail, because there is a good argument that then a lot of people go down hard with them, and perhaps the federal government is one of the few possible sources of aid. However, this chapter ends by increasing the suspicion toward the conspiracy about the possible planned demolition or allowed attack of the trade center. Something also later discussed by this author, with regards to Bush’s plan needing a free and clear excuse to exorbitantly increase military spending.

I didn’t learn anything new, except a few statistics from the short chapters on business meals and entertainment, and tax-free muni-bonds, but they are probably valuable additions. I thought it was interesting that when business meals were no longer funded as well, restaurants and food industries didn’t hurt at all. Wherever money is allotted, it will be spent on something that provides work (and theoretically a job). This was also more proof that people don’t need to be encouraged to do what they want to do, although I’m sure the argument was only made the other way, as a desperate attempt to not lose business-paid meals. With the tax-free money bonds, I was amazed that “before the mid-‘80s, there was almost no limit on what states could authorize tax-exempt financing for…there was no reason for the states not to go hog wild.”

With regard to export subsidies, I was once again reaffirmed about the evils of Enron scandals, the Bush administrations strong attachments to oil, and even Clinton’s expansion of the budget of the federally funded Overseas Private Investment Corporation. On one end of our government, we’re helping companies sell crap consumers overseas don’t need, we’re helping them advertise those products, and we’re apparently helping companies that are helping people buy that crap. One mentioned welfare-king is the 9.3 million dollar subsidy from OPIC which is financing Kimberly-Clark’s overseas operations. According to Z&N they have transferred 600 jobs out of the United States, thanks to our government assistance to business. My father lost one of those 600 jobs after 10 years at the Draper, UT branch. Kimberly-Clark is not the only guilty party in removing jobs from the states, but the guilt more accurately lies with the government assistance that provided for, if not encouraged such actions.

Military waste and fraud is one of the issues that seems incredibly easy to solve, but by continuing to exist, heavily backs the populist conviction that our nation is divided by “the haves and the have-nots.” The elites who “have” are more interested in protecting their own interests than the people’s because it isn’t the people that gets them into congress or in the oval office. As far as they are concerned, their campaign runners, PRs, party affiliation, and financial donation contributors are the only people they owe anything to. They show this by their actions, not necessarily by their words. This chapter provides a heap of evidence against the stupidity and loyalty of our military spending, based on the shenanigans of war profiteering, wasting of military supplies, overpricing, or inaccurate pricing for “black budget” funding, the admitted fraud, then the wrist slapping fines of 2 billion dollars against 56 billion dollars of profits. The Bush administration seems to have gone to any all lengths to contribute back to contractors who supported the GOP. The bribery section describes how blatant, easy, and cheap it is for large, subsidized, multinational corporations to buy off senators. What’s the point in investing in buying and selling, when you can just take ungodly amounts of handouts from governments around the world (one in particular) -when you can make phenomenal returns (several billions) on a quarter of a million dollars spent on a U.S. senator who will throw business, and funding your way.

Another great criticism of the pentagon and the Strategic Defense Initiative is that they makes evident the size and waste of our military government at the federal level, as well as concentrating high paying jobs far from the rest of the “united” states. According to Z&N, the Congressional Budget Office reports $1 billion spent by the pentagon promoting arms exports creates 25,000 jobs. However, while job creation is touted by many a philanderer, this same $1 billion could create 30,000-47,000 jobs if spent on mass transit, housing, education, or health care. The SDI has spent $35 billion in one decade, with nothing to show for it.

The best parts were saved for last, between the article, “Making a Killing on War” and the section, “Selling the Story to the Public.” In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt said, “I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.” I wish the same could have been said by Bush in light of the World Trade Center attack. Instead, he declared a war, enacted restrictions of civil rights, created millionaires several times over through no-bid process, contracts with billionaire corporations like Halliburton, who had also done business with Saddam Hussein (a Bush-identified terrorist). Finally, it was incredibly enlightening how Vandenburg answered Truman’s black-hearted dilemma about keeping war industries afoot during times of peace. “Scare the hell out of the American people.” For over 50 years now, this has been the agenda through threats such as the bomber, missile, antiballistic missile, fighter, mega tonnage, submarine, survivability, strategy, and security gaps; all of these are suspiciously reminiscent of the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” To boot, we now have a never ending “War on Terror” scare to validate military funding, much like our never ending, ever depleting “War on Drugs” fought by law enforcement.

My second and probably more poignant reason for withdrawing from the topic of abortion is that the society in which I live gives little value to my opinion as a male. While I may have the potential to enlighten the females in my life to my views on abortion, or petition and vote toward changing laws about abortion; I still have no direct “say” in what happens in abortion offices. I would compare it to one slave asking another slave, both having no voting rights in the next election, for whom the other would vote. While they may have a response, their response holds virtually no significance, and may be considered a waste of time.

I have personally tried to flesh out my perspectives due to my denial of morality as a whole. At best, I speak only of ethics, and when referring to right and wrong, I do so with regards to transgressing the social contracts under which we live. I am a naturalist in this sense, and side with many of Hobbes’ ideas about ethics. However, as said above, I do not think it is necessary that children die or are “preempted” for selfish reasons.

Bob and Linda are a perfect example of the need for change in our education and our laws. Bob had no say in the destruction of his child (I do not know at what stage life, human life, or a possible soul could become a part of the embryo, but since it is obviously a gradual processes, despite the observable punctuations in development, it is all alive. The sperm and the egg were both biological, living substances with the teleological purpose to create a living human.). While Bob and the family may have been selfish in wanting the child to live simply for their own fulfillment of needs or desires, it is obvious that this was the case for Linda. Everyone here is being selfish, and yet it is made to sound as though Bob believes he is thinking for the sake of a would-be person as well. Apparently Linda is more concerned about having the type of career she wants than the needs of the child growing inside of her; these needs include her continued proper care for her body, dieting, and possibly missing out on a career for some length of time. I take Bob’s side in the issue simply because he has the right to act selfishly in this manner, since he entered into the contract of marriage with someone who believed as he did about the issue of abortion when he entered into the contract. For this reason he did not include in the vows, “until you abort my unborn child, do we part”, which he may have done if this appeared likely with Linda. In that sense, I believe she broke the contract by changing in what Bob, and the previous, “premarital” Linda, would have both considered a drastic way. I believe by having the abortion she should expect to have her husband leave her and take the kids as well; taking them on the grounds of abortion and that she cannot be expected to take care of children what with her new career –as she made obvious through her reasoning of the decision to abort her freshest offspring. Overall, I believe she was hasty and selfish.

I would like to point out that I do believe that abortion is killing; it is a degree of killing, yet it is a premeditated killing of a lower form of life. If one were to stab Terry Shiavo to death (back when she was “alive”) it could be reasonably argued that this is a lesser form of murder than killing someone who still had a life to live. While the brain-dead are less significantly human (existentially and for societal purposes of utility) than are those who are healthy, so is it the case that unborn children, even newly born children are less than healthy individuals in some regards. (This might be argued successfully to me, that from the perspective of innocence or honor, children have not broken as many contracts with others. And, as may be opposed to that of healthy beings, that neither a baby nor an “invalid” is in a position with which to arm and defend his or her self.) While I believe abortion to be a lesser form of murder, I do not believe that murder is innately wrong. I believe it is wrong with regards to our society and with regards to our species. Also, I feel this way about abortion with regards to the “right to life” issue. We are but advanced animals, subject to nature and to the animals around us. The rights that are ours are not sovereign, but are merely those which we take for ourselves, or are bestowed upon us by those with the power to bestow and enforce them (America is only free as long as it has the social integrity and safe-balances to remain internally free, and the military power to keep it free from external threats.) The only right to life that an unborn child and an invalid have is that right which he can attain for himself (not much), or that which others can bestow upon it (such as a mother protecting and “growing” the child). To sum up this facet, I do not think it is appropriate to equate what one has the “power” to do with what one has the “right” to do. The problem in terms here is that rights should be spoken about as society-defined rights, such as the constitutional agreement that we have the right to bear arms. While the views of “right to lifers” more closely parallel the medical field’s mandate to “do no harm” than does those fighting for the rights to choose to abort babies, their views should not be allowed in the discussion with regards to children having “God given” rights to life. There are no rights (observed by my previous definition of rights) that we as a society do not provide. If God does provide them, let God not let man put them asunder.

From my perspective, without morality, God, and innate rights, why is it the woman’s choice to decide the outcome of the child being created by both the man and woman? A small voice in the background shouts, “It’s her body.” Yet, the embryo belongs to both of them. Simply, because the law currently allows her to decide for herself how to deal with the “effects” of their actions, she is permitted to destroy their property and child. I hate to say it, but here is yet another slippery-slope step of the results from which the Catholic Church tried to stray its sheep for so many years (which instructed that sexual intercourse be used only for the propagation of the species). The fact is that they did the deed, and they did not succeed with whatever form of contraceptives were used. They did have an understanding that neither of them thought abortion would ever be an option. So, she did what many promiscuous single women do (and men would too if the biological setup were reversed); she cleaned up the mess. Selfishness and recklessness are greatly promoted through the concept and presence of abortion.

I see a huge problem here that reminds me of bulimia nervosa. That problem is a resounding, “Oops!” followed by desire to sweep the problem under the rug rather than face the natural consequences. Abortion is a hit and run. More specifically it is binging and purging. People no longer have the accident of failing to plan, they go far worse and plan to fail. They are taught that irresponsibility is permissible; people make mistakes. Rather than becoming more responsible, better people, who think more often and thoroughly, plan more efficiently, and act with more wisdom, people merely do what they feel like. There is money to be made in selling the safety nets of others mistakes.

I do not condemn contraceptives, I think they are great way to add pleasure to peoples lives, without necessarily overpopulating the world, or without forcing the irresponsible to raise such a high percentage of our future generations (a huge problem I do not have time to get into). However, when using contraceptives, one must expect and plan for them to fail at their purpose (this is what smart people do). If one absolutely does not want a child, then sterilization or a vasectomy are the obvious fail-safes. If this is too much to ask, then abstinence is another secure option. Otherwise, expect that having sex will eventually result in its intended results -babies. Being dim-witted and irresponsible is the most common excuse for the desire for abortion (while I understand there are those cases in which life must be abhorrent for a child to have to live with certain illnesses, or cases in which a developed, otherwise healthy mother’s life is at stake; both of which may lead to the possible decision to abort).

Abortion largely offends me, not because it is killing, which it may as well be (arguing the point shows devious motives), but the reasons why people are partaking in what may be a slippery slope destruction of our way of life. Killing children at any unborn stage is simply a step toward killing children at higher stages, until one day we are killing newborns, 3 year olds, anyone under 16. I’m not trying to be dramatic, but when something considered socially, or biologically sacred is brought into question, it must be acted upon with caution, done with much deliberation and reflection. It should not be taken as easy as, “I slept with that jerk; I don’t want to have his baby.” It should not rest on things such as, “Well it is just not the right time in my career for a baby.” (Note that the reasons for having an abortion are to destroy a child, not to keep from having a fetus. The reasons for an abortion make the argument that they are not children impotent, so to speak. The reasons for abortion are not for the annihilation of what is not a baby, but for the direct purpose of annihilating the baby, as well as its inclusion into their lives –in the form of needful human being.)

I would never desire to have one of my potential offspring aborted (this is saying a lot considering my campaign against children, and slogan of “No Babies!”) However, if my contraceptives did not work, I would default in knowing that I had planned for such a day, and should contraceptives fail, I led a life which I knew might result in having to love and care for a child, at which time I would be happy to do so. Yet, my “say” might mean nothing if the woman I married thought otherwise or changed since the time I meant to marry her. For this reason, Bill and Linda have a much greater problem than that of whether they agree or disagree on abortion, but whether her desire for a career means more to her than her family and their opinions. Furthermore, we as a society have some thinking to do with regards to abortion. Is it really that much easier to abort a potentially healthy child in the womb for the sake of irresponsibility, than it is to help suffering, terminally ill patients pass on, relieved of their pain?

No Babies Inc. proudly invites you to visit our website.

I am sort of undecided about coercion vs action (not to make you civil people sound deceptive or forceful). However, I am decidedly against inaction, even if the action is merely to confront in dialogue, lectures, or debates.

At times violent overthrow may be successful, but probably more lasting, and closer to achieving Hegel’s dreamlike state/community, is the means of changing the system from within, or at least through the “proper channels”.

This style of revolution is discussed at least briefly in the film, “The Constant Gardener”, not to discuss their topic, but their disagreement on method. The chick (can i say that here?) is always quick to protest and revolt, not militantly but vocally. Ralph Fiennes’ character believes the only effective means for change in government/politics is through the respected channels. Later in the film she attempts to take physical action to promote change, and by the end, has convinced him to do so as well.

Personally, I think voting is probably the weakest tool above inaction. I even feel that unless one plans on running for positions himself, or backing someone in their campaign (with talent rather than pocketboot), not much can be achieved through proper channels. Protesting, while a form of action, seems a bit outdated, at least in the marching, cheering, and sign carrying aspect. However technology presents a platform through publications, the internet, television, and radio where one can reach a large amount of people and perhaps spur faster change by bypassing the “proper channels.”

For myself, I do not know if I believe in anything to the point that I want to do anything. I’m an unsung uberman growing comfortable in my wool, and I fear this is the threat of apathy, that the rebirth of the phoenix will be aborted and kept down by the man.

But…were I to find something I thought worth the fight, I’m not the type to “play the game”, and perhaps that’s why I’ll lose. Its my nature to fight where I need to and retreat within where I don’t. I’ve always felt I’m like Sin City’s Marv:

“He just had the rotten luck of being born in the wrong century. He’d be right at home on some ancient battlefield swinging an axe into somebody’s face. Or in a Roman arena, taking his sword to other gladiators like him. They woulda tossed him girls like Nancy back then.”

Thanks for the existential affirmation.

When first asked to remove our image (one associated with Satanism), we asked for clarification as to whether we were being asked or told. Our RA explained that while many were upset with our symbol, the only way to force us to remove it is if a rule was established which prohibited all window decor in campus dorm windows. This would make even more people unhappy. We asked our RA to respond to all requests by saying, “They have said they will remove their offensive sign if everyone on campus stops wearing their offensive CTR rings.” (CTR, “Choose the Right,” rings are associated with Mormonism.) We knew this was an unreasonable request which would never even be considered by the campus community. In fact, we didn’t care about CTR rings or even believe there was a Satan. But once the wheels of censorship were set in motion we thought we’d play around with it. We merely hoped to spark the thought in people’s minds that they display offensive symbols all the time. In our situation, Mormons have been forced to see one symbol they have labeled offensive once or twice a night for just over one school semester. Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have been forced to see many more symbols (which may be considered offensive to them) far more often, over any amount of time they spend on the USU campus (be it one semester, the duration of attaining a four-year degree, or longer).

The housing department at USU seems to have taken Bok’s point of view of persuasion where he says, “…talk with those responsible, seeking to educate and persuade rather than to ridicule or intimidate.” The department was only interested in educating us of their view, attempting to persuade us into believing it was wrong to display our symbol because it offended people. The department spent no time trying to see our view or understand our position. Bok’s suggestion that “only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect,” is limited to the idea that the offended person’s view is correct, and the solution is to convince everyone else that they are wrong. His solution is to proselytize his viewpoint rather than to seek understanding of a differing viewpoint. Subliminally, and probably unconsciously, Bok offers a suggestion aimed at the destruction of diversity of thought and perception, uniting a one world view. Didn’t Hitler try to do that?

When I first read Bok’s prompt, it rang pretty true. If someone tries to bother you, ignore it. If that person can’t get a rise out of you, he will stop. But with a deeper read I have found much distortion in the path of his problem solving. The initial problem is that you can’t ignore things that offend you. If I say don’t think of an elephant, your cognitive response to translating the language will form a framework within your mind associated with the sound of the word (Lakoff). If you are truly offended as a naturally response to the sight of a symbol, you will be able to do no other than respond naturally to the sight. What makes an object offensive is not the object itself, but the perception of that object through the sociological (or psychological) lens of the perceiver. If someone is offended (hurt) by the existence of something, the reason (or problem, if one allows it to be so) lies within the perception of the offended, not by the nature of the object. In the case that someone is trying to bother you, they are actively attempting to achieve a response you don’t have to provide. If you are bothered by the nature of something, it is passively bothering you. Depending on the offense, that something may be unable to change. In either case, a true (natural) response will always be shown. If something offends you, you will be offended when confronted with that thing. If you can ignore it, it means you have come to terms with it, or can be not offended by it. Therefore it is up to you to keep from being bothered. You have to change some part of your thinking (viewpoint) in order to come to terms with that which you have no power to control.

The next part I quickly agreed with, but had difficulty with at a closer look, was Bok’s urging for us to bridge the gap of diversity, to talk things out. That sounds reasonable enough, but what he actually aims at is to talk with them in order to persuade them to believe what he does. He wants to educate them, as if they could be sensitive, caring, loving, truth-filled and righteous, if only they could learn what he knows. This is conceited ethnocentrism on a personal level, unless of course, if Bok is perfect and right about everything. He mentions nothing toward acceptance that people are different, or toward embracing diversity in thought or culture. He mentions nothing about talking with people bearing socially controversial symbols in hopes to understand their viewpoint, or come to some mutual understanding.

In the end, when you start outlawing symbols, you start a process of censorship, the destruction of freedom. Even if you succeed, you’ve outlawed images that do no harm, their power is given by people weak enough in mind and will to give them meaning and power. Still, with knowledge comes sensitivity (if for no other reason than the extreme that some nut might kill you for a brandishing a symbol on your person or belongings). The most important aspect here is quality of life. Only you have the power to not be offended. You can learn to accept, come to terms with, destroy or understand that which offends you. Anger and offense are products of fear. They lead to the dark side. Being scared, offended, hateful, or angry is self destructive. These emotions do no good to anyone, no harm to anyone else, and harm only the person harnessing them. Aren’t there better things to do with life?

Work Cited:
Bok, Derek, Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus, March 25, 1991, The Boston Globe

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39 NIV. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.). So it is then righteous to turn the other cheek is it not? I have heard interpretations that Jesus’ “Parable” Doesn’t necessarily mean that if one were attacked that he should not fight back. However, Jesus lived a life of “perfection” and when made to suffer consequences of blasphemy, unjust as the accusations may have been, he did not fight any of the guards or any of his persecutors. True, he may have simply been carrying out prophesy, but the fact is that he led an example for us in the life that he lived. His life was an example that Christians, followers of Christ and his example, should try to mimic in their thoughts as well as their actions. Shouldn’t a Christian then live Peaceful with a man as far he can? (Romans 12:18 NIV If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone). And when he cannot keep the peace, let it be the other person that does not keep the peace. What I then want to know; if it is right for a man to turn the other cheek–as not only Jesus’ words declared, but his actions exemplified as well– is it not right for a country, when attacked by a Terrorist cause, to turn the other cheek rather than declaring war on that man, and any nation that harbors him. Sure, God has set authorities in place of others. (Romans 13:1 NIV Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.) But when one nation attacks another nation, as one man would attack another man, where is the Christ like quality of turning the other cheek in the act of attacking back/retaliating? People tell me, “Chris, we have to defend ourselves (Declare war wherein many “innocents” will be slaughtered)…or else every country will mock us and attack us more because we appear weak.” What is it to Christians if they die following Christ’s example? In the eyes of God is it not the strong one who does not retaliate violently? (Matthew 5:9-10 NIV Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.) Vengeance is the Lord’s and He will repay. (Romans 12:17-19, 21 NIV Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.) What is it to the Christian people if they do the greater good by fulfilling spiritual merit as opposed to not having other nations think them weak?

Is what is righteous for a man righteous for a nation?
Is what is righteous for a nation righteous for a man?

1. I think more people want to argue, vent, and tear each other apart, than want to help each other understand his or her points of view. Are we trying to break barriers, or fortify them? Are we trying to close the gap and progress, or is that stupid question to even ask? My little view on the matters I read is that neither gender will survive without the other as the species goes…even if we could, would we really want to?
delete

2. My “man thought”: It seems to me that Feminism often (not always) lashes out at the opposite gender (men), by not standing for the equality of all (men and women), but solely for the progress of women in a once formidably patriarchal society. At times this is sexist, and sexism (a form of blind hate or prejudice) engenders backlash, reverberating prejudice; fueling the fires of hatred.

3. Rapists, Serial Killers, and Sociopaths alike were not born these ways. They were shaped and molded by their environments to become this way; some as early as infants. I believe everyone is responsible for their actions, and best expect to be held as such. However, my biggest concern is the lack of responsibility we, in our society, want to take for the creation of such deviants…Abuse is perhaps the key factor in the development of violent criminals, be it physical, emotional, sexual, or negligent abuse. As a society, we like to point fingers at the assailant or his/her parents, but we forget about peer abuse. (So as not to continue the rape scenario, due to its high potential for sparking emotion, consider students –even as young as first graders–who bring a gun into their school and start shooting their classmates). Though the victims may not deserve their fate, or have even been an instigator of the conflict, there is indeed a reason for why the particular victims were chosen (Victimology 101). –I have opinions on where the sickness in our society originates, but it’s a bit of an exhaustive essay.