Steroids, Major League Baseball and the Cult of Celebrity

Mitchell report article

I don't usually pay much attention to sports articles, but this is about the Mitchell report, which is the result of the almost two-year investigation of performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. In the article it states that 3 to 6 percent of adolescents have or are using performance enhancing drugs, which I guess is a nice way of saying steroids. This does, as the article states, translate to hundreds of thousands of adolescents. There are so many different ways this impacts the lives of teens and I guess there are a number of different reasons for taking steroids, but one of the major contributors to this has to be the cult of celebrity surrounding these wealthy and highly celebrated athletes, some of whom flaunt their wealth like they were movie or rap stars. That is a report only dealing with professional baseball, also. There has yet to be something of that magnitude about other pro-sports, especially football, which has become infamous for the aggressive off-field lives of some of its star players.

There is such a drive to be successful in sports, especially for inner city youth, and particularly among young black men, for whom sports seems to be the only answer for escaping inner city violence or lower economic status. That coupled with the promises of college scouts and coaches, some of whom must be encouraging and or supplying the drugs, only makes for ruined lives if those young people are injured or fail to reach the goals set for them by their coaches and family.

Despite all these issues and the highly visible criminal cases of pro athletes just is further reason why these people shouldn't be made into gods like they are, and why most of them shouldn't be considered role models for young people, otherwise they are modeling the wrong behaviors.

Soft Power and the Exportation of War

Yahoo article on "soft power" speech by Gates

If there is any doubt about the Bush administration's efforts in diplomacy and to reach out for international alliances and support, this is the evidence. What is most interesting in this article is the concept of 'soft power' which really amounts to funding and concentrating on using civilian agencies to affect change in the international arena. This would include diplomacy through the State Department as well as whatever information is being exported to other nations, both in the government propaganda, and as I would also include, in the commercial market. More people in other nations are going to come in regular contact with American messages as consumers in the marketplace then they will just from news sources or agencies of their own government. While this is a slippery slope of truth and lies, the government has already been playing this game in our own country for decades with withholding key information about projects or investigations it deems fit for the public to know.

The statistics of the budget differences and job cuts between the Defense Department and the State Department, as well as those other agencies mentioned, are the most poignant reminder of what real diplomacy means. If the total number of diplomatic representatives equal the number of the crew of a single aircraft carrier, there is something seriously wrong our government's or president's priorities in terms of international relations. This is further highlighted by the US actions in the climate conference in Bali which was set to work on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. As this article states, the US was the only major economic power to reject the Protocol, with it's calls for reduction in fuel emissions, and it continues to be very vocal in its defensiveness over its responsibility for greenhouse gases and its level of fuel emissions.

Climate conference article

An important part of that article is the Bush administration's response to the target numbers for emissions reduction, saying that it would harm the US economy and that the conference they are sponsoring is aimed at finding an "environmentally effective and economically sustainable" solution to the emissions reduction. Here's the problem with that: they see the economic problems and environmental problems as fundamentally separate with a cause effect relationship rather than an interrelated and inseparable issue with a symbiotic relationship. The environmental impact of economic development and vice versa is too fluid to separate them in an either/or argument. What's probably the most important question is at what levels of environmental change are you willing to live in order for you to have an acceptably sustainable economy? If the climate changes continue, as they have already begun to have dramatic effects on the environment, than their effect on the US economy will begin to have a direct impact on consumers and no matter what the Bush administration thinks will happen, that has a direct impact on the political landscape of this country since consumers top priority is their own financial security.

So what level of environmental change is acceptable? Will we be OK with the Bush administration's views of 'environmentally effective and economically sustainable' policies if it causes enough of a change in seasonal temperatures that will drastically effect crop growth and the use of ground water to prevent crop loss? What about shifting major weather patterns so that areas of the country which are used to plentiful rainfall and warm but temperate seasons suffer harsher summer temperatures, droughts and harsher winter weather? What about an increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms from the interactions of shifting weather patterns and the sustained weather patterns over the Atlantic Ocean? What about the impact that weather patterns and rising sea levels will have on transportation? What about land-loss, especially around coastal marsh and swamp areas and beaches from increasingly violent weather, and the impact that would have on their local ecosystems and wildlife, most notable the systems that directly effect the fishing and seafood industries? What about the increase in the use of energy and fuel due to the amount of increasing usage of air-conditioners and heating units due to hotter summer temperatures and colder winters?

The last point is that why is the targeted number in the fuel emissions reduction five percent below that of 1992? If there has been an increase in the amount of fuel emissions since then, especially considering the rate of technological advancement? This is a question easily answerable by looking on the highways at the number of SUV's versus the number of compact/fuel efficient cars. And there is another issue which the Bush administration seems to have missed the boat on. Where Congress developed their own energy plans which would increase the rate of required standards for miles/gallon for new vehicles, and especially over SUV's, in the next few years, the Bush administrations policy, and the energy bill they had drafted, was a joke in comparison. If you want to accept any responsibility for the environmental impact of our consumer economy and lifestyle, don't propose legislation that includes no real changes. As we are in an age of fuel efficient cars, hybrid technology and the eventual usage of more advanced fuel sources such as hydrogen to power automobiles, promoting low increases in fuel standards is an obvious throw back to special interest politics that favor Bush's friendly oil companies and his own business interests and investments over the real possibility of economic freedom offered by advancing technology. By economic freedom I mean freedom from the need for foreign oil, which seems to be something very important to actual US citizens.

Perhaps it is an environmentally responsible solution that the Bush administration's funding of diplomatic resources is so low, but it is also not indicative of their professed diplomatic efforts. If this president had honestly valued diplomacy over direct action and multilateral versus unilateral tactics, than his financial support would have followed his principles and we'd see evidence of real diplomatic change and friendships around the world. Instead we have the largest military budget in history, the most advanced military technologies, which have yet to see the results that were promised almost a decade ago, and an alarming decrease in the integrity and influence of the United States around the world. Perhaps this wasn't the candidate to chose in 2000 after all. What is the candidate who lost doing right now? He is advocating for environmental change and positive international cooperation to improve economies through pollution free industries, a subject he just won a Nobel Prize for. That is a real American president.

Bush oversteps authority and denies children health care

Yahoo article about the SCHIP veto

Presidential power lies in the executive branch, which makes the president the executer, the one who oversees that laws are being enforced, not a legislator, and while he is ultimately able to preside over whether a law is fair and viable, it isn't for him to strong arm Congress into submission by holding hostage important legislation.

That isn't just a symptom of the current administration, it's been something that has been going on for a long time, a way for the president to have some imput in laws being created. However, when a president starts issuing demands and is inflexible in his position, holding up the legislative process and strong arming Congress, that is a major step over the line. That is something President Bush has been guilty of almost since the beginning, and it has never been more apparent than it is right now. There is a large majority of both parties who want to pass the legislation for the children's health care bill, a bill he vetoed once already and required changes. This is the second veto, after they already made changes to the bill, and which he remains adamant that he get his way or that they need to meet impossible demands for him to compromise even a little.

This bill is incredibly important for helping to insure twice the number of children already provided for in the program. These are children whose families aren't poor enough for Medicaid but who cannot afford private insurance. The president's position is that it is a step back moving children from private insurance to public insurance but instead the government should be moving children from public to private insurance.

There are a number of very important issues threading through this argument and several major problems with the president's warped values regarding the economic disparity of those people who should pay and those people who actually can pay for private insurance. It is important in this whole debate to consider that the quality of care that people receive is very different from that of those who have comprehensive private insurance. There is quite a big difference as well between the care received at various levels of affordibility of co-pays, premiums and extraneous medical expenses. Not all insurances are equal and having been on public insurance I can attest to the fact that it is far better to have reliable and convenient access to a pharmacy, a general practitioner who is a qualified doctor rather than a student, and nursing staff that actually care about your welfare.

The economics of affordable health care among the families that may or may not qualify for the public insurance is never as easily defined as it seems in news articles and headlines. Anyone who has filled out FAFSA knows that the various forms of income and property that go into estimating a person's ability to pay for this or that can skip over huge factors that would qualify them for pay. Saying that a number of families make over the median doesn't account for the number of those families who live in cities with high costs of living. It also doesn't account for the families with one or more family members with managed health issues, which may include the child. Children with asthma have different needs than children without, so do children with diabetes, children with behavioral disorders or mental health issues, or children with learning disabilities or other disabilities whose parents may even make more than enough to pay for private insurance but whose insurers refuse to insure their child due to the risk level or financial cost of that child's care. If private insurers do decide to cover children with managed health care needs, how much of a premium will they charge? That factor or other cost of care issues are major contributors to even middle class or upper middle class families from being able to qualify or afford private insurance.

If the president wants to move more people from public health care to private, what is going to provide for that shift? It is already difficult enough for people to get health insurance through work. Even if they do work for a company that provides insurance options, the coverage options may be limited or the premiums will vary depending on those same factors of family health status as mentioned above. And then there are companies such as Walmart, who maintain a huge number of part-time employees so that they can provide a workforce for their stores without having to invest anything in employee benefits. A company's interest in providing health care isn't altruistic either. Businesses exist to make money and when a business provides health coverage, its primary purpose is driven by their desire for a healthy and efficient workforce. Perhaps the reason for taking a part-time position is because the family needs additional income, in which case it isn't likely that they would have extra to pay for rising health care costs, especially if they have multiple children or managed health care needs. If there are adults taking advantage of the program, why doesn't the president use a line-item veto instead of a full veto of the bill?

Probably the most central issue in the administrations position on the bill is the cost and its resultant rise in taxes. This could be easily remedied by reassessing the United States' military commitments around the world and not just in the Middle East but in regions like South Korea, African states, and former Yugoslavia. If taking money away from the Defense Department would weaken our military and take money away from already difficult salary and benefits budgets for enlisted soldiers and families, then that is only an even greater reason to reassess our commitments, our ability to spend, and question what is actually being done with the hundreds of billions of dollars in the Defense Budget. Also, isn't the health of millions of American children worth a raise in taxes? Why not address other issues at the same time and tax companies who have cut large numbers of jobs in the US only to export them to other countries to take advantage of cheaper labor and substandard regulation of required working conditions. That would punish companies having their products made by children in foreign sweatshops and provide health benefits for more Americans.

I feel like it is not too difficult to see a connection between the health and welfare of our American children and their success in education and becoming successful adults. As these things are interrelated and education is another area on which many people believe we should designate more money, it would seem to me that improving any conditions which have secondary effects on the education of children would be positive. Also, shouldn't every child receive the best quality health care no matter what amount of money their parents make? That's a question of values that seems to not have reached President Bush's deeply rooted respect for life.

CO Shootings and Question of Culpability

Colo. church gunman had been kicked out

The third shooting of this type in one week, I think this further highlights my earlier posting. I also wonder, in this case in particular, how much this youth ministry organization participated in this boy's problems and eventual breakdown.

Obviously he had mental health issues that seem to have gone unaddressed, justifying to yourself the actions the shooter took requires serious illness. That isn't to say, however, that this organizations refusal or treatment of this young man didn't add fuel to his madness. It is also likely that the deeply religious environment he grew up in wasn't instrumental in the formation of his warped reality. While the mental illness would have been there either way, the form of their reality comes from that illness warping and interacting with the environment they grow up in. Also, there may or may not have been any help for him or support from his family in getting access to quality professional help.

It continues to feel bizarre to me when families of those who commit violent crimes, especially crimes like these, say they had no idea something like that would happen, their child was always well behaved, they can't understand how their child could have done such a thing. A person doesn't commit such a horrible crime without at least a little warning and certainly not without some long pattern of behavior or health problems. It is partially the responsibility of their family and friends to help prevent events like this from occurring. While they are grief-stricken and baffled, they should have been more careful and supportive beforehand and then they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

It is also puzzling that he was let go by the youth ministry due to undisclosed 'health' problems. In a culture of religious conservatism and intolerance that can often be a vague reference to homosexuality, especially when they don't want to admit or accept the idea of gay people being among them. If this man was mentally ill and gay, one can only imagine what treatment he received and rejection he felt from a religious culture he was born into and raised to be a part of.

It would be cruel to say that any of the victims deserved or caused their fate. It is, however, important to remember that in the context of the religious institutions being targeted, it is easier to understand the shooters motives in reference to the issues above and to see the culpability of a culture more willing to toss away someone too different or too sick, than to offer than effective care and open minded compassion.

CIA tapes and losing credibility

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071209/ts_alt_afp/usintelligenceiranattackstorture

This article says we might be losing credibility in our Justice Department because of the destruction of those interrogation tapes. I think that given that those tapes were of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and have been there without any form of due process for the better part of a decade, that the destruction of the tapes is just further proof of what people already know: that our Justice Department will do whatever it has to to pursue what it feels is right, no matter how that violates the rights of others.

Part of the Problem

The tragedy in Omaha and continues with the release of the photos from the security cameras in the mall. I won't post the link to the article, but if you are desperate you can just go to yahoo. I had to see the photos to look at the article, unfortunately, but I just think that it is a sick thing that people would want to view the photos and video, and maybe even more so that the media would seem eager to publish them.

The Mall Shooting

So here we have another example of where our culture fails to recognize the incredible importance of mental health and not letting people who have health needs slip through the cracks. What I find so incredibly tiring about these situations, which are becoming more and more frequent it seems, is that there are signs that seem to be ignored by those around these unfortunate shooters. This one actually spent time in mental health facilities, and put out messages to friends about his health problems and eventual crime. Where were these friends when he needed their support? More than that, where were they when they received what must have been disturbing messages about what he'd do?

I'm not sure how much responsibility should be placed on the shooter when he actually reached out whether for help or attention to those who should have taken notice, and they did nothing. At the very least they should have turned the messages in to police and perhaps this would have prevented a tragedy. I was watching footage on my local news station and it showed authorities removing rifles from the place where the teenager was living, multiple rifles. The report also said that he managed to fire off thirty rounds in what must have been only a short few minutes, meaning it wasn't a hunting shotgun but some sort of semi-automatic rifle.

Is it so impossible for people, especially the gun lobby, to see the connection between automated weapons and violent crimes? Is it that hard to understand why there should be further restrictions on who can acquire such weapons, where they can purchase them and how long they have to wait while a background check is being processed to insure that they are legally able to purchase the weapon and licensed to do so?

Weapons are designed for one thing only: to kill things. That is the simple truth and has been since the beginning of time. People with mental health problems shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns of any kind, much less semi-automatic military style rifles, and much less multiple guns of that type.

While the boy who committed the crime shouldn't be thought of as a victim and while he bears most of the responsibility for his actions, we can't completely absolve those people around him who he reached out to specifically and our culture more generally of its responsibility in this horrible, and terrifyingly more frequent, crime.

Technorati Profile

Michigan to Not Be Represented at Democratic National Convention...

I feel as though in a representative government, any infringement on the rightful representation of a group of people's voice is an infringement on their basic constitutional rights. Despite there needing to be organization and policy for the sake of making that representation more effective, delegating over the rights of a group when allowing others freedoms is against the fundamental principles of the exercise of free speech and a representative government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071201/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

What AIDS Means to Today's Youth

http://health.yahoo.com/news/healthday/moreyoungamericansarecontractinghiv.html

This article features a long list of statistics from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) about the recent disturbing spike in reported new cases of HIV infections among teenagers and young adults. For the most part, at the present time, it is most dramatically affecting young gay men and the black community. This, however, is symptomatic of the nature of the marginalization these groups suffer in our society and also is a precursor to wider infection rates among other minority groups. Also, among gay men, the trend of new cases of reported infections is not limited only to young men but to all age groups. The reason why the statistics are lower among young white people are probably many, however one possible answer is a possible decreased likelihood of them getting tested. It has become routine that when doing blood tests of any kind that HIV screening is often done, something I know from personal experience. This is sometimes an option the patient can choose and sometimes something the doctors will order as part of policy or routine. Depending on the discretion of the doctor or the regional practice within hospitals, it is possible that it is less likely to be done on white patience due to the way in which HIV education is often targetted towards urban gay and black youth.

The nature of the public face of HIV, and the above mentioned targetting of specific groups is also a suspected cause for the spike in reported cases. As mentioned, many ads for new drugs show attractive men with athletic bodies living fully despite their HIV/AIDS status. It is also not in the media eye what happens as the disease develops so that the fear of contracting it has been taken away. Young people feel invincible anyways, a trend that is commented on often. That in addition to the invisibility of AIDS victims in our modern media and daily lives creates the atmosphere of complacency. People don't see the effects that the drugs still have on the body, or the way in which it affects people as they age with the disease. They also don't get an accurate representation of the facts of actually getting access to those drugs and the health care costs related to 'living a full life' with AIDS.

Among gay men, at least, the complacent attitude young and older people have developed have included and been accompanied by a huge rise in the use of Crystal Meth. It started as a party drug, but because of the nature of it, quickly spread to one of the most common substances abused among gay men. It has also been resulted in the appearance and rise of the subculture called 'barebacking', which promotes the practice of unsafe sex as the only real path to sexual pleasure. This trend has gone from a counterculture among older gay men, 'bears', and S&M practitioners to a wide variety of other subcultures within the gay male community. This practice and subculture relies heavily on an intentional ignorance of HIV and other STD infections, ignoring statistics and adopting a 'whatever' attitude about the actual affects of the disease. As this is also a practice that promotes and relies on a similar attitude of invincibility, these attitudes also promote a lack of regular testing.

Whatever the reasons for the rise of infections, one of the most dangerous aspects of this rise is the portrayal of this information among the media. As with the first emergence of HIV and AIDS during the 1980's and 90's, it is too easy for it to be portrayed as a gay or black disease. Given the lack of reliable information on the use of condoms as birth control among heterosexual groups of all ethnic minorities, or information on the number of partners in various sexual habits, it is impossible and wrong to say that it isn't just as likely among other minority groups, and especially given the lack of promoting testing among these minorities. That is the most major contributor, I feel, to the spreading of the disease. Accompanying all of this awareness and information, is the promotion of testing, or lack thereof. It is standard practice of health classes across the country to discuss safe sex and STD/STI's and organizations such as the CDC and Planned Parenthood have made the latest information on prevention and statistics widely and readily available, so the access to such information is everywhere, so any ignorance on the disease would seem more intentional than not to me.

The truth is that people DON'T see people suffering from the disease on a daily basis. They don't hear from people like my friend in New York who knows that if he ever moves from the city he'll have only a few options as his medical care requires that he's on welfare. The medications alone cost $3,000 per month, much less the routine trips to the clinic for checkups, the modifications he's had to make to his diet and activities due to the connection of his physical levels of exhaustion with the severity of symptoms of the disease and the side-affects of the medication. Young and old people alike who do not know a person living with the disease, or aren't aware of someone in their life who is, are not going to know the amount of effort and money that go into living the full life advertised in the HIV medication ads. That makes them complacent, ignorant and irresponsible. Ultimately HIV/AIDS is reemerging as a major threat and hopefully people will wake up to reality in both preventing its spread and in the nature of their personal understanding of the disease itself.

Mid-East Peace, a Century and Counting

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/mideast_summit

So...Bush wants to add his stamp on a peace process that has involved a half-dozen presidents of the US, Israel and Palestine, as well as countless other intermediaries? If that is his attempt to make a last effort for some positive place in history I think he should throw all of his dwindling political authority behind it.

What I see as the biggest problem is that the Palestinian leader recognized by this process has no control over the Hamas, who now have control of Gaza, so he's not speaking as the leader of a unified Palestinian people. On top of that, there have been three generations between the ejection of Palestinians from their homes and communities, so any claim over those properties is nil.

This is also a battle that is as old as recorded history. The ethnic group that formed the Jewish civilization have fought against those of the Arab culture since their first inception, as slaves and as free people, so how anyone expects there to be peace between the two groups seems foolish.

A Mid-East peace conference should instead focus on how to politically stabilize the region as a whole, opening conversations with countries like Syria to try and find common ground, and discussing topics like nuclear disarmament and radical terrorism, or even, GASP!, economic stability, quality of health care and education, unemployment rates, and those other things that drive people to fundamentalism and violence.

When are we going to decide to have conversations focused on topics that are actually productive and constructive rather than theoretical and existential?

Continuing Saga of the CA Fires

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071107/us_time/willachildbechargedinthefires

That is the latest story about the 10 year old attributed with starting one of the worst of the fires, accidentally while playing with matches. While I have trouble believing that he couldn't appreciate the danger of playing with matches, I don't think anyone would have thought their actions would have sparked something as catastrophic as the fire he is accused of starting. 21 homes were completely destroyed in the LA county fire he's associated with, and 3 people injured. People are angry, especially those who lost everything. I get it, they have that right. But punishing this kid by possibly holding a multi-million dollar bill over his head at 10? Whatever.

As I posted before, I reassert now that the true cause of the fires is the environmental state resulting from extreme drain on local natural resources. It's fine to identify the points of origin, especially if they are intentional, but holding a 10 year old accountable for a debt he couldn't dream of repaying is shifting anger and blame away from the responsibility people share for continuing to be the cause of their own problems.

Right to life and paying for pregnancy

At work today one of my coworkers, who is pregnant, was discussing her pregnancy and planning for the birth of her baby. Several other women who had already gone through it were talking about it with her and they specifically were talking about the finances involved and how much was covered by their health insurance.

I usually try to stay out of conversations involving heterosexual topics, specifically because they don't involve me and because I find them distasteful since conversations about homosexual topics are usually considered too controversial for office topics, which makes me angry. However, I have noticed while reading through insurance packages and different providers that pregnancy is often prohibited from coverage by insurance companies. The preggo woman made the comment that having a baby was expensive and I think that simple statement is so ironic in our current state of pro-life politics.

This may become an addendum to the respect for life post, and I apologize before I go any further. However, as much as I hate the statement that giving birth and bringing a new life into the world, is a miracle, it is certainly a signifiant occurance and an important one for the continuation of society. If we have so much respect for life and think that giving birth is so sacred and miraculous, why isn't it covered by more insurance. Why should someone have to take on a large financial burden in order for them to precipitate such an important occurrence? Shouldn't it be free if having a baby is so special?

The $1 Billion Fire

The current California wildfires are taking up all of the news channels, especially the 24 hour feeder channels like CNN and Fox News, both of which are tired to me. The AP has reported that more than $1 billion worth of damage has already occurred because of the blazing fire. The governor has declared it a federal disaster area, and more than a half million people have had to flee their homes, including many many famous people because it includes Malibu.

I'm not sure if the building codes in the southern parts of the state include the kinds of precautions that they do in LA to prevent earthquake damage or in Florida to survive hurricane damage, but the areas of southern Cali that are getting hit are areas that have desert conditions, that's why the forest fires occur, and have been occurring every year for the past millennium. The idea that these are all of a sudden a greater issue seems as absurd to me as saying that people weren't expecting to get hit with tornadoes when they live in Nebraska or Kansas, or to say that they weren't expecting to be flooded when they live on a floodplain.

If people insist on not just building, but re-building in areas that have consistently suffered natural disasters, we should question whether those people should be allowed to be insured when they know from geological history that property in those areas are going to suffer damage from the frequent and consistent natural disasters over time. These are just as much a drain on the health of a private insurance industry as frequent medical malpractice suits.

The learning curve seems to not have reached those people who don't realize the effects of their increased drain on the natural resources of the area have caused. Part of the increasing dryness leading to the severity of these fires may include global warming in general, but it would seem that the more ground water that is used by human beings in the area and taken out of the natural precipitation cycles, the dryer the ground, plants, air and loss of rain. That means all those rich people with huge houses, which have to be heated, and the spa's that use so much water in cleaning, in products and services for their clients, all the hotels and homes with pools, all of those are putting further stress on an environment which was naturally arid to begin with.

We as a culture still seem to operate under the archaic and ridiculous notion that we can somehow control or master nature, which time and again we are proven to be wrong, whether it's because of the undersea earthquake that causes a tsunami that devastates a quarter of the globe, or try to run huge SUV's with luxury everything, on board DVD players and enough room for a football team on fossil fuels which are of course a limited resource. Instead we should be building in areas that have a good supply of available resources to support the people living in the area, find alternative fuels or alternative means of gaining the resources we need in order to curb the already horrifying environmental damage we've done. Why should someone be paid years of money from taxes or private companies that then raise rates, when they refuse to leave the coastal area that has had hurricanes several times a year since anyone could remember?

When we are smart enough to build houses made to survive the local environmental phenomena, and build in areas that can support us with resources, maybe we'll be able to get in control of the constant drain on property insurance, and return to important issues like international geo-political economic policies, whether we can support increased trade with China when they still zealously oppose any sign of Tibetan independence, or refuse to take any significant political action against their abuses of human rights.

What is a Right to Life?

The 'right to life' is a political phrase used very often by the pro-life political movement to associate their beliefs in the sacredness of every human life with the innate rights afforded to us in the Constitution. It is used in association with situations that are emotional and play to the sympathies of audiences, but they severely limit the application of this idea to the purview of moralistic religious conservatism.

What does that phrase mean, however?

In its current political incarnation it means that life starts at conception and no person or persons should knowingly interfere with its growth and natural progression. This comes into play again later on when the health of a person deteriorates to the point where their family must consider euthanasia.

The broad reach of this, however, isn't the sole property of moralists and conservatives. If we truly are guaranteed a right to life and thus encouraged to have a respect for life, doesn't that also imply a certain quality of living? We also are guaranteed the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' which assumes we all possess the means to pursue those things rather than being physically or mentally handicapped. By respecting someone else's right to life it would therefore appear necessary to allow them what they need to continue in their pursuit of those things.

This is where it gets difficult, however, because the help required for many in order to be able to have a quality of life that would resemble the pursuit of those ideals requires more than a smile and a handshake. For some it involves intensive medication and therapy, or physical therapy and regular doctor's office visits. If a person is unable to pursue those ideals without assistance, it is unlikely they have private health insurance and those services are too expensive for most people to pay out of pocket, so they would then need public support.

My experience, however cynical, is that words are easy comforts anyone can afford, however the political application of paying higher taxes to provide better public support is a very different thing. While right to life is an ideology that has become so pervasive in current politics, there is no discussion of these other applications of that idea. In fact if there truly was a respect for life among those that espouse this political ideology, why isn't there more focus on improving the adoption process and putting effort into improving the foster care system?

The right to life and respect for life goes far beyond abortion and euthanasia or assisted suicide. It applies to the support we as a society give to those who are mentally or physically disabled to the point which they are not able to live a life of the quality that many take for granted, either due to the strain of financing necessary medications, the limitations of their living situations, or their access to quality healthcare and therapies. If we truly believe in these ideals than we would spend less time protesting ineffectually and more time, money and effort in creating positive and supportive environments for children through adoption and foster care, and make sure that those who are otherwise live in fear, depression, and without hope are able to live as fully and happily a life as their friends and neighbors.

Gun Control

The issue of gun control is one of the less controversial of the divisive issues in politics at the present. Gun control has been a political issue since the creation of guns, as were the sale and ownership of weapons in general since the dawn of time. It is a simple concept, weapons equal power, at least military power and that is the force by which most cultures have governed their people since the inception of governing. That is why the constitutional amendment guarantees the right to bare arms, it's the government control and the attempt to subvert the building revolution that had instigated the outlow of private gun ownership by the British in the first place. Too many people use the simple fact of a constitutional ammendment to assert their own right as a legitimate American right, but it was never the intention of the founders to provide weapons to criminals. At that time handguns were pistols with a single shot and took time to reload just like the rifles. They didn't have the six shooter and certainly not automatics. So why are people so insistent that they have the right to own guns? Possibly it is for the same reason that the amendment was included, it represented the power fo the government over private citizens.

An alternative to the disempowerment of individuals by the government might be the desire for personal safety. The home owner wants to defend their home against intruders, a person wants to feel safe walking down the street in their neighborhood. Neither of those situations are helped by the rights of others to own guns. It actually makes us less safe when a person intent on committing a crime has access to handguns, and aside from denying felons the right to own guns, it is impossible to discriminate against one group versus another on a constitutional right.

Notice that this isn't an argument against hunting or against hunting rifles. Hunting rifles and handguns are very different things, just as automatic weapons are from hunting rifles. If hunting is a sport, than it is poor sportsmanship to use an automatic weapon just because the hunter can't shoot straight or because he wants to hit more targets. Also, it is cruelty to the animals hunted to be subjected to increased injuries from stray rounds, especially if they aren't downed and it inhibits their ability to participate in their flock or herd. Men shouldn't be allowed to own military style weaponry just to satisfy their feelings of penile inadequacy.

One final issue that seems relevant to gun control is the right to life. This phrase gets thrown around too often, especially by anti-abortionists, but it is a concept that is too important to lve as the narrow-minded and flawed political vehicle they have made it into. Right to Life is a very broad reaching idea of respecting the lives of others as sacred. 'Thou shalt not kill' is the commandment and although there can be many interpretations of exactly what that applies to, there is one obvious meaning, killing is a crime above all other crimes. But how is that served by ownership of an item that by definition is made to kill? When statistics show handguns in particular as the cause of most violent deaths in this country, how is that honoring that commandment? If statistics show that the ownership of handguns made no significant reduction in the occurrence of violent crimes during home invasions, how does that justify owning one? Does it counteract the number of accidental shootings by children living in a home with a handgun? Or justify the statistics on school shootings where teenagers had access to guns in the home and used them to commit violence in their schools? If we truly had a respect for life, shouldn't we do everything we could, everything that seemed necessary, to guarantee to our best ability the safety and health of all of our citizens?

The framers of the constitution may or may not have had criminal activity in their minds when they debated that amendment, but as most of the troupes in the militias and armies during the Revolutionary Period were required to provide all their own equipment, it would be naivety to think that the right to bear arms had its spirit purely in the desire to guarantee hunters continued to have rifles available, much less foresee and not have acted on the rising number of violent crimes committed between young people in their own schools.

Cycle of Violence: Gun Control and Victim's Rights

The subject is a twelve year old girl who was shot in the head and put into the hospital in early September. She is still unresponsive but has been taken off the respirator and is breathing on her own as her family maintains full faith that she'll come home as the girl that they knew. The girl is poor and black living in a major city.

So this is the crossroads of two important political issues - gun control and victim's rights. The victim's family is holding a party as a fundraiser for the girl to cover medical expenses that have continued to accumulate in the time that she's been hospitalized, and which will continue to accumulate. As a victim, one who has no financial independence of her own and who obviously has a very long recovery ahead of her if she does come out of her coma, how is she ever going to be able to pay down medical expenses not covered by the state? If her family is working class or poorer, how would they be able to cover it? When long term care is required that would carry a person over the caps of whatever health insurance they may already possess, what responsibility do we have as a society to care for that person?

As a society we are struggling with the issue of gun control, and that seems to be a particularly relevant issue in this case. How many fewer cases of these violent crimes would occur if handguns were controlled with the strictness with which we control explosive substances? aren't they as deadly? Yet we are allowed to hold licenses for private ownership of handguns that we would never be allowed for some controlled substances. Even propane requires certain permits to possess in large quantities, like the licenses and permits farmers have to use propane in large scale heating systems for barns. Why is it inconceivable then that we as private citizens wouldn't have to have a permit demonstrating a necessity for using a handgun before we are allowed to own one?

If we accept the ownership of weapons as a constitutional right and do not put very clear and discriminating limits on ownership of weapons when they are responsible for the majority of violent deaths in this country, we as a society have to take responsibility for the victims of crimes perpetrated largely by use of those weapons. That means that we owe victims of gun violence every type of care necessary for them to recover. If we don't owe them that because of our common humanity than we owe them because we have given permission to those individuals committing the crime by our purposeful and self-interested ignorance of the fact that guns only have one purpose, they kill.

Rich Libral Monster...

St. Paul Minnesota is going to be the home of the 2008 Republican National Convention, in the Excell Center looking over the Historic Riverfront. The problem, though, is where are the republicans going to stay? Where are they going to eat? Where are they going to spend their money? Minnesota, and especially the Twin Cities are strongly liberal. The large younger population in Minneapolis means that that city tends to be more progressive. The St. Paul population is different. There are a lot of families, young and old, and many long-time residents. It is also a city that has made a mission out of preserving its more historic areas.

Over the past decades, however, this has meant that the projects, funding, and interest of the city was distributed among its different neighborhoods, and since there are several colleges with long histories in St. Paul, it is not hard to see why. However, this has meant that the downtown area which boasted numerous shops and dining during the sixties and seventies has shriveled up to a single Macy's which is chugging along until it's lease is up and then there'll be one more empty building downtown. In fact, there is one building already that is completely empty, it's owner having left it to stand, the street level boarded up, for almost a decade. The building isn't small either, but a dozen stories. This is the city that the republicans are coming to.

When the convention was first announced, the mayor defended the situation by saying it should attract $150 million in revenue, despite what money would be required to prepare for it. That was a few years ago. Now, however, looking at less than a year away, it is scary to think what will happen when they come. Where are those millions going to come from?

This diatribe has a point, though. The catalyst for this situation is what I will call a rabid form of self-satisfying, self-righteous, and self-glorifying liberalism on the part of upper middle class and upper class long-time citizens of this area. They'll create projects of affordable housing in neighborhoods with little crime and good schools, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. As long as they can rely on those working class and poor people not to cross the street that marks the edge of the secluded wealthy houses than it is an act of a good old liberal. They want to preserve the historic nature of Victoria Crossing, an area with small shops and a collection of bars and restaurants which guarantees two things: night life and consistent business, though the area has benefited from their inclusion of a Bonfire Grill, a J-Crew, and a Pottery Barn.

All of this is completely overshadows the importance of a downtown filled with offices where the only places that survive do so because of their lunch crowd. The most successful shop, it seems, is the tiny candy and popcorn store which is busy at all hours and open three or four hours after everything else except bars shut down. There is little nightlife, and what of it there is scratches and claws a living out in spite of no help from the city.

Still, the good old liberals go on in their self-satisfying way, helping those poor, the blacks, the Hmong, and the Latinos, as long as it isn't bringing them into to their neighborhood, or into the schools where their children attend.

Six-figure contract for some, food stamps for others...

I find it interesting that the government is trying to retain large numbers of experienced service people with large cash bonuses. Hit here to read the AP article on yahoo that talks about this issue. If the businesses feel that it hasn't been a significant drain, isn't this really making an effort to extend the tours of already career military men? I say men since I don't believe that the green berets and navy seals receiving the payments allow women.

I do know that there are servicemen and women who are barely making the equivalent of minimum wage and many families are on food stamps. All the 'benefits' referred too in that article are available on the base only, and the quality of housing is vastly different for non-officers than it is for officers and their families. If the Pentagon is having trouble paying the younger troupes, most of whom are young men and women with young families and children, than how is it able to afford paying six figure bonuses to anyone? If these career soldiers are so experienced, how about they lead the tactical training and drills to better prepare the younger and less-experienced soldiers, then the military could cut down on the number of high bonuses they hand out and maybe the families with children could afford to send their kids to competitive local schools, afford better child health care, pay for spouses to go to school or receive job training and a host of other things. Maybe they could even take better care of the surviving families of those who have already lost their lives. Wouldn't that be worth the money?

Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia: the fine art of oppression

A professor at Columbia found a noose on the door of a colleague and friend, a woman who teaches about racism in the graduate school of education. One student reacted in the article by saying that she's not surprised because racism is still very active in the world. I have mixed feelings about that, especially given the anti-gay political support coming from black churches and religious leaders, but I suppose in some people's minds the oppression of gays isn't nearly as bad as the oppression of black people, but they probably never saw the pictures of the bloody fence where Andrew Shepherd hung and bled all night in the freezing cold, badly beaten and asking for his mother.

She's right in one way, though, racism is alive and well, so is sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression. While self-identified Christians complain about being oppressed by our modern secular society, they should think about a few issues first:

1 - They have yet to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, it hasn't even passed one house of Congress, and that is a bill that was worked over and over again so that it simply prevented the discrimination of groups recognized as oppressed minorities. That list, funny enough, didn't include gay people. It managed to become an Act of Congress, but doesn't carry enough support to be added to our most defining document.

2 - It isn't at all shocking that nooses were placed on the tree outside Jena High School, a horribly painful symbolism for black students, but one acceptable enough for the students responsible to only receive a suspension. It also wasn't shocking that the resultant escalation of tension and violence occurred that ended up playing out in the case of the 'Jena Six'.

3 - When public figures like Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh are able to use their platforms to spew long diatribes of hurtful, painful, and hateful words to a mass appeal with few repercussions. The Imus case is only one example among the many shock-jocks and political pundits who are arrogant enough to think they should get on the radio and convince the masses that their ignorant and self-righteous beliefs are gospel truth. Rush Limbaugh still has a huge fan base that is willing to overlook his drug abuse and perjury because they are entertained by his vicious comments which include denigrating mothers of active duty military members who want their children to come home.


I think the more devastating problem is the more subtle forms of discrimination that can be as unnoticeable as the spell check on my firefox program. If you type in the words, Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, and don't capitalize it, they activate the spell check signal. If you type pagan, a recognized form of religious worship, it doesn't.

I've experienced the subtler forms of discrimination at work, not getting rehired after a brief time off from work. While I had some issues with lateness and some with appropriate office conversation, the vast majority of issues that I had as an employee could be directly or indirectly linked to one or both of two things: being a gay man, and being bipolar. The being gay part didn't happen in overt homophobia, but instead by people who were uncomfortable with some of my conversations. I refrained, at least most of the time, from anything graphically sexual, yet there were still complaints to the managers. Once, during a review, my manager actually said, "and you need to cool it with the 'gay stuff'" Well, sorry, that's my world. It might not be everything of my world, but it is at least a big part. I don't want to have to sit through a long conversation in the break room about engagements, wedding planning, honeymoons, babies, nieces and nephews or anything of the trappings of an obviously heterocentric society, yet I can't speak about topics that relate directly to my life without making people feel uncomfortable. If that is an issue with the 'team' I worked with and I make noticeable improvements on being more careful with what I say and around whom, then that shouldn't be a further issue. If I have to adapt myself so significantly to my work environment until I feel uncomfortable, or if I feel like, which I did, the managers were allowing others to speak in a way that I was uncomfortable with but which were about heterosexual sex topics, that is harassment.

In the end it doesn't really matter if your employer has an nondiscrimination policy, unless there is an obvious and overt form of harassment or assault, there isn't safety for people of a minority at world or in the world, not really.

A Problem With Circumcision

I was at work today and a woman was having a conversation with one of her coworkers about, what I inferred was, circumcising her baby. I have a serious issue with that topic being discussed in the workplace as I am one who is often had supervisors discussing appropriate and inappropriate work conversations. I also have serious and fundamental problems with the idea of circumcision.

A) That's how nature made us, the foreskin has protective/hygienic functions as well as sexual functions. The practice of circumcision is ancient and has cultural and religious roots, yet these were originally dependent on the beliefs and customs of those ancient cultures. The Christian and Hebrew faith tells that Abraham was given direction from God that he should circumcise his son and himself as a sign of his faith, and that it would distinguish the Jews from the gentiles. It was also much more hygienic in ancient times since they didn't have readily accessible hot water to be able to clean underneath the foreskin on a regular basis. So why do we continue the practice now, 3,000 years later?

B) There is no choice for the infant or toddler whether they should be circumcised or not. It is a decision the parents make regardless of whatever the child may eventually want in the matter, and it is a surgical alteration to the child's natural body that is common practice in the United States. It is a problem when male circumcision is considered 'normal' or becomes common practice in a culture that considers female circumcision to be a violation of human rights. It is also a problem because it is an either-or situation, once the foreskin is removed it cannot be truly restored and there are enough instances of improper methods and failed circumcision and the effects on the emotional/psychological health of the child later on that there should be more awareness of its violation of the child's rights.

What bothers me most about the practice is that the children aren't given a choice and the fact that as they grow, there is no basis for comparison to call into question whether or not it was right for the alteration to have occurred. I was never given a choice and now in my adult years, I wish my parents hadn't decided to go ahead with it. I am also not sure how much thought goes into the decision among most parents. If hygiene is the consideration, we are in an age of easy cleaning. Parents use soft disposable tissue already soaked in antibacterial soap to clean the child between baths, and it is a simple matter of pulling back the foreskin to clean the penis until the child is old enough to clean it himself. If it is a matter of ethnicity or religious beliefs, there are plenty of Catholics from Spanish-speaking countries who are not circumcised. Also, and while I have no statistics on it, the fact that circumcision has become such a widely encouraged means of preventing the spread of HIV in African states suggests that there are probably many uncircumcised men there, and at least a few of them are from predominantly Islamic countries. How does it prevent the infection? The mucosal layer of the foreskin is there to delay penetration into the skin by foreign bacteria and parasites, if cleaned properly, there should be no substantial increase in the infection rates as the infection would still have the primary means of entry, through the urethra, or the possible secondary, through cutes or sores on the shaft of the penis.

There is no reason for the barbaric practice of circumcision to continue in an age of Clorox wipes and antibacterial soap. While the beliefs of it may have changed over time, the horrible instruments used in the act have changed little. It violates the rights of the young child, hasn't shown any significant reduction in disease that can't be attributed to the reduction of sexual activity caused by lack of sensation brought on by the additional abrasion on the head of the penis once the foreskin is removed, and it one of the first steps parents can take to force an identity on their child, by taking away his ability to control his own body.

Links for more information on circumcision:

http://www.circumcision.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Setting the Tone for Everything

So, here's the deal, I'm 28 on Friday and I'll have only had one boyfriend, who never actually said anything about us being together, and we were only together for a month. I know that's shitty in comparison to so many heterosexual couples my age, and in fact compared to all of my friends, but that's what happens when you are crazy and between the periods of deep and scary depression there are bouts of feverish mania with intermittent manic outburst of uncontrollable and terrifying rage. I'm on plenty of meds now, though, so that is supposed to make everything better. How could someone in those circumstances ever expect to find someone that wasn't as chronically ill as they? That's on top of any body issues I have. I'm a thin blondish haired twink trapped in the body of a 250+ pound hairy gay man and have been ever since I can remember. I've always had a tough time with my body, for reasons that are due to abuse and not so much a gradually developed poor self esteem. It makes it crippling to go out and interact with anyone in social settings like bars or even at parties. I went through periods of desperate loneliness, especially as my depressive symptoms grew stronger and stronger, but now I am in a place of quiet desperation as I feel like I've wasted more and more time. You see, I'm never going to be that happy, pretty, young person, ever. I wasn't when I was younger, and I'll never be that as I grow older. That's a tough thing for me to face, especially when I compare it to the brief times I've had some companionship, aside from my parents, in my life and how satisfying I found that to be.

I try not to be bitter about these things, I have accomplished things and I have had friends and seen and done what other people find pretty amazing. Still, it's hard for me to look back and be satisfied with my past since there was such long periods of unhappiness. Now, at 28, I find myself truly enjoying very few things. I find happiness to be fleeting and struggle and heartache and pain to be constant. It's something that some people find melodramatic and I've heard many many people say that everyone has problems, everyone struggles, life is hard...But that's not true. Life doesn't have to be a struggle, and usually its the results of peoples' actions that make them have to struggle, but that's not what I'm talking about...What I'm talking about is the way that truly poor people have no ability to move out of poor neighborhoods, their school systems are broken so there isn't really a viable education available, most young people only see the violence and poverty immediately surrounding them and so they have no ability or even plan to escape that world. That's struggle. People with AIDS who have to manage the world of public assistance, finding a place to life, work, mental health, discrimination wherever they go if people know their status, or how the fear of other people will cause coworkers, etc,... to react if they know, and all of this on top of taking 30 pills a day which often make them too sick to eat.

Those people know struggle. I know struggle. When you can't make yourself get out of bed, when you can't even appreciate the colors of the trees and flowers, laughing children, or good weather, when debating and planning suicide are a constant activity in your down moments or when a TV show or movie can rock you so badly that you are physically ill for days, that is struggle. When you can't go to work because the dreams you have been having have progressively made you more erratic and make you so physically sick you are practically paralyzed for hours, that is struggle, and none of those are exaggerations at all.

Most people don't have to struggle like that. Yes, everyone has problems and life is hard, but not everyone has to struggle like that, not everyone has problems like that. That's why I hate people, possibly with good intentions, who have no ability to really grasp the kinds of things that fuck with me on a minute to minute basis judge me or tell me, you have control over what you say and do...Shut up, you don't know, you have no idea what it's like to be so full of rage that you watch yourself like you are in a movie as you run around the house screaming and with the irresistible urge to break things, or to hurl things at people around you trying to calm you down.

How can I expect anyone to want to deal with that for thirty years, much less weeks or months.