Columns Galore

So, I'm finally getting around to posting my columns from the paper last semester.  These are in no particular order, except I did put the government and media columns in order since they go together.  Also, these do not seem to be all of my column articles, so I will have to post the rest whenever I can get them from my computer, which will probably not be this summer due to internet snafus at home.  Anywho, here are the links:

6 Reasons Not to Finish That Pesky Math Homework - websites to waste your time on


Let's Keep it Civilized - disagreeing on religion


Cheap and Easy: Halloween Edition - costume ideas you can make yourself


Gender Identity: Normal or Disorder 


Make Time for Things You Love 


Can the Government Force You to be Healthy? - graphic images on cigarette packaging

We Need a Media Invasion - solutions to the growing problem of youth smoking (goes w/ above)

How to Love the Way You Look - loving your body the way it is


Changing Gender Stereotypes - male gender stereotypes


End of a Love Affair - how I fell out of love with politics


You Have the Right to Remain... Totally Confused - religious stereotyping

In other news, I'm starting a new blog about design, which will perhaps include clothing, shoes, and the like.  I'll post the link when I've decided on a name!

COLUMN TIME!!

'
Check out my column this Thursday at KentWired.com!!!


I'm so excited, are you excited??


It's gonna be so amazing!

You Mosque Be Kidding Me!

'
Note:  Please do not mistake the argument below as anything other than a disgruntled outcry against radical political nuts.  For those who oppose the building of the Muslim Community Center two blocks from the site of the WTC towers for a genuine reason (i.e. not fear-mongering, intolerance, or racial/religious hatred), I respect your opinions and would greatly appreciate feedback via comments below.  Honest discussion is a must.  My message here is simply, don't hate on people just because of their religion or because of some bunk you heard on Fox or because you're scared.  But if you do have a legitimate reason for opposing, I respect your position, and please let me know.  Enjoy!

Alright.  I have had it up to my ears with hearing about this "Ground Zero Mosque."  Anyone else tired of hearing about it?  If I never hear another Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin blabbering on about it, it'll be too dang soon.  *Huge Sigh*

First of all, let me point out that for one thing, the Muslim religion as a whole is in no way associated with the crazy wack-jobs who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings.  They were what we call religious zealots.  That's like the equivalent of those Westboro Baptists who picket at soldier's funerals(you should watch this video if you haven't heard of them).  Now, do we just go hating on all Christians because of the stupid stuff these crazed religious zealots do?  NO.  Get over it, right wing fundamentalists.  You cannot use the screw ups of one extremist sect to condemn an ENTIRE RELIGION.  Now, not everyone is crazy about Christians, but I will tell you that most don't see them in the same light as the Westboro baptists, who just love forcing their young children to shout at soldiers' funerals about how they're all going to hell for being gay and carrying signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."  The bottom line here is that most Muslims do not believe what the extremists who flew the planes into the WTC buildings believed.  Therefore, no harm done putting a mosque near ground zero.  If we used the same logic here in other instances, we shouldn't allow Christian churches near the sites of burned down abortion clinics. 

Point number two.  The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in the first amendment of our Constitution:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  (source: U.S. Archives)  Unless you support mucking up the friggin' Constitution itself, the very basis of our American government, you cannot be against building this mosque.  (Oh wait, I guess Republicans do want that... Please see the text of the 14th amendment here.)

Point number three, George Bush himself, a Republican mind you, said that the Muslim faith was a peaceful one and that we should not DISCRIMINATE against Muslims.  Bush also mentioned that the Koran says that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity.  Doesn't sound like evil, murderous teaching to me.  Here's the video of Bush AT A RAMADAN FESTIVAL talking about how we shouldn't hate on Muslims for what happened on 9/11.  It's a good video, so if you can spare the time, watch the whole thing. 

Point number four, there are around 10 million Muslims in the U.S. alone (estimate from islamicweb.com, which used stats from the CIA factbook).  In the world, it's estimated that there are nearly 2 billion Muslims - that's over 25% of all people on Earth.  Islam is also the fastest growing religion, as well as the second largest religion in the world (behind Christianity).  We can't seriously hate 1/4 of the world's population.  It's ludicrous!

Point number five, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is actually a community center.  The New Yorker had an article about it recently, saying "Well, for a start, it won’t be at Ground Zero. It’ll be on Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center site (from which it will not be visible), in a neighborhood ajumble with restaurants, shops (electronics, porn, you name it), churches, office cubes, and the rest of the New York mishmash. Park51, as it is to be called, will have a large Islamic “prayer room,” which presumably qualifies as a mosque. But the rest of the building will be devoted to classrooms, an auditorium, galleries, a restaurant, a memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001, and a swimming pool and gym. Its sponsors envision something like the 92nd Street Y—a Y.M.I.A., you might say, open to all..."  Read more of the article here.  Sounds pretty good, actually.  Doesn't sound like something that would be a detriment to the area or damaging to the memory of 9/11 victims - especially since it will have a MEMORIAL to the victims.  C'mon people, let's stop the hate and be reasonable.  There are community centers for African Americans, Hispanics, Christians - duh, the YMCA stands for "Young Men's Christian Association" - so why shouldn't there be community centers for Muslims.  I can't even believe we have to argue this point.  It's called HUMAN RIGHTS.

Lastly, I want to share a link to a photo project by Daryl Lang which shows various buildings, businesses, etc. that are roughly the same distance from the WTC buildings as the proposed Community Center (aka "Ground Zero Mosque").  You should really check it out.  Some of the buildings include fast food restaurants, a gentleman's club, and a betting shop.  I really don't think this should even be a problem.  I think a lot of the victims would say, 'You know, I really wouldn't want a couple of crazy nuts to ruin the freedom of Muslims all over America,' who, may I add, were likely victims or family/friends of victims of 9/11.  It's just another excuse for people to hate on others. 

A Social Struggle

`
Today I was finishing up The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, which is an absolutely amazing book that everyone should take the time to read.  It was life-changing - and I'm not just saying that.  I finished up the book by reading the "Twenty Years After" essay at the beginning, which talked about her amazing journey after the book, and the revolution (or evolution as she puts it) in women's rights it rekindled.


Women's issues are really becoming a passion of mine.  I made a small list today of issues facing modern women today, such as rape, cervical and breast cancer, unequal pay, the subtle discrimination still present in the workplace, lack of child care services for working women, maternity leave, and decreasing abortion rights.  I think this is something I really want to pursue as part of my career.  I hope I can find a grad school with faculty members who have done research in this area because I think I'm passionate enough about it to want to pursue it for the rest of my life.


Anyway, today I'm going to talk about the issue of abortion.  This is a hot issue today that often  finds its way onto the political platforms of major candidates.  It was hotly debated in the 2008 election and it is a topic some feel so strongly about that they will vote based on this issue alone.


But the point I really want to make today is that this is one of the major dilemmas that face our society today.  As humans, we are faced with the responsibility to protect all life, as well as the responsibility to ensure equal rights for all people, and this is an issue especially for women.


The basis behind the pro-choice position, as I see it, is that women have fought long and hard for rights in a lot of arenas.  One of these is reproduction rights.  We won a great victory with advances in birth control that let us decide when and if we as women wanted to have a child.  Abortion goes along with this because it ensures that women still have that right, even if birth control fails.  Another facet of the pro-choice position is that some women are raped and become pregnant and shouldn't be forced to have the child of their rapist.  Also, when problems arise with the pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother, even abortions in the later months should be allowed to save the mother's life.  Basically, it comes down to whether or not you will force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.


The way pro-life proponents paint the picture of abortion seems a little unfair.  First, though, I do agree that it's not okay to take the life of a fetus for no reason - i.e. that if you are just irresponsible or don't like wearing condoms, that isn't a reason to get an abortion.  Now we have Plan B, so abortions for failed birth control should be less of a problem.  I feel uncomfortable with some arguments about when a fetus is considered human.  I am really not sure what I think about that.  But the current cut-off for abortions at 22 weeks, when a fetus could survive outside of the mother's womb, is being challenged in some states (I read this in USA Today this morning) which want to replace it with 20 weeks, making the argument that the fetuses feel pain.  But a lot of pro-life supporters make it seem like those who consider abortions are murderers who have indiscriminate sex and don't care if they get pregnant because they'll just use abortion as an easy solution.  That is certainly not the case.  It seems that a lot of women who get them feel a certain amount of guilt afterwards - marking a decision they didn't take lightly.  And most abortions are probably used for teenagers, life-threatening complications, rapes, or birth control failure in couples who are not ready to have a baby but are otherwise perfectly able to support one.


I'm sure there's more to both sides, but I think the basic dilemma here is between a woman's choice of when to have a child (as opposed to her complete absence of choice in the past when she just had to deal with being pregnant if her husband wanted to get her pregnant or if she were raped) and a human's right to life.  The decision seems impossible, and I think that it most likely is.  People still get fired up about it, though.  We waste a lot more energy on arguing about it than trying to find solutions to the problem.


I'm sure women who are for abortion or who have gotten one struggle with the implications - are they taking a human life?  And pro-life supporters should struggle with taking away a woman's choice to be pregnant when she wants to be pregnant, and not against her will.  What we need to do as adults is consider each side carefully and thoroughly, putting any opinion-tainting factors on the back-burner in the process.  This is society's problem; something we all deal with as human beings.  So let us consider it peacefully and with the mind to solve it, without all the bickering and divisiveness!  Because it is everyone's problem and everyone's job to try to fix it, without pointing the finger of accusation in the process.

Don't Govern Me!

`
First of all, I'm going to start off with something completely unrelated to my topic for the day.  I am sooo soo excited because the Stater (on-campus newspaper) is looking for columnists for next fall, and I have been thinking lately about how I'd really love to do a column in the paper.  And now I have a chance!  All I have to do is submit a 500 word sample before Monday, along with a resume, and short note (and by e-mail too, so no scary interview - at least yet).  I cannot say how excited I am about this.  And I soo hope I can do it!!


Okay!  Now back to the topic at hand.  I was reading USA Today during my break this morning and came across yet another article about a Supreme Court case.  And yes, I am miffed about this one, too!  Here's the gist of the article.  The Court was ruling on a law which was "used to prosecute a Virginia man who advertised videos of dogfights" and which "covered 'any depiction' in which 'a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.'"  The Court voted 8-1 against the law, saying it was written "too broadly, potentially covering hunting and other activities that would not always be deemed cruel."  That's fair.  I'm not upset about this because it's a logical argument, and the Court's opinion "invites Congress to craft a law targeting only 'crush videos'" which they explain "typically show women's heels digging into small animals."  I agree that the law was too broad and the language should be narrowed, but read what comes next.


Okay, here's the juicy part.  USA Today describes the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, as a "forceful, often derisive, rejection of the government's arguments."  Roberts even described them as "'startling and dangerous.'"  I don't see how this law warrants that kind of a reaction.  How is it dangerous?  Or startling?  The law was crafted for the protection of animals, and that's not exactly an unworthy cause.  Think of young, angry boys (or girls, perhaps) watching videos of someone that they look up to who mistreats animals.  Those little boys are going to go out and do the same thing.  (And as a side note, it's actually a symptom of conversion disorder, which is often later diagnosed as a more serious psychological disorder).  We all emulate those we want to be like.  So yeah, I see a problem here.


It gets better!  Roberts also gives us this little gem, "'Our Constitution forecloses any attempt,' he wrote, to outlaw speech on the basis that it simply 'is not worth it.'"  He also called the law "'a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.'"  Uh, don't you get the feeling that he's going a little far.  Like the people who wrote the legislation were purposefully trying to take any rights they could get away from the American people?  Um, yeah, everyone knows that elected officials undergo a werewolf-like change as soon as they enter office, becoming tyrannical overlords of the type that spend the majority of their time practicing their evil laughs, rather than leading the country, right?  Or am I getting this all jumbled up...


There are just too many people today who are trying their hardest to paint the government as some Big Brother type organization constantly scheming up new ways to screw over the American people.  And yes, a lot of politicians are corrupt, but a lot of other ones are just trying their hardest to make the country a better place and a more equal place.  I won't get started on this, though, because I could write a whole other post.  Back to the point!


The Virginia man from whom this whole debacle originated, says that he was selling the dogfight videos for education on pit bulls, not the promotion of illegal dogfighting.  And yes, that argument makes little sense at all.  I will concede that the government came back with the weak argument that "prosecutors would go after only the most 'extreme' cruelty."  There is just no way to ensure that, and the weak language of the law could be used abusively.  But this is my favorite part!  Stevens then said, "'Not to worry, the government says... But the First Amendment protects against the government:  it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige.'"


Shock!  Awe!  What did he just say?  Yes, he said the government is trying to practice their noblesse oblige on us.  Um, wait, isn't noblesse oblige a reference to the 19th century French concept of the king's right to take whatever woman he wants, regardless of her marital status?  Yeah, I can imagine you smacking your forehead right now, too!  


The only dissenting justice said in support of the law, that "the court could have upheld the law to cover only crush videos and dogfighting videos."  Okay, so why didn't that do this?  Maybe I don't understand court rulings that well, but I've had some exposure to how the process works, and the judicial branch was given rights to effect legislation through their rulings.  So it really shouldn't have been a problem to specify the reach of the law or at the very least recommend changes to the language of the legislation.


Other arguments in favor of this ruling:  "'The mere fact that speech is offensive doesn't justify banning it.'"  Even though it was mentioned earlier in the article that the Supreme Court has approved stipulations to First Amendment rights regarding obscenity.  That's why you can't swear on television.  And that's offensive, but it doesn't really cause little kids to go out and kill other living animals.  Also, "'We don't say we're only going to allow speech when it has social value or speech that we all agree with.'"  Okay, well this is different.  Because it has to do with actual lives.  Living animals.  Who are tortured and killed for entertainment.  And it is wrong. So I sincerely hope that a new law is passed, with more specific language, that can protect harmless animals from being abused for others entertainment.  


Maybe the Virginia guy had a good, albeit twisted, intention for his videos.  But does that give him the right to exploit dogfights?  Some people have huge gambling problems connected to dogfights and thousands of dogs are killed through this "sport" every year.  Maybe he was trying to raise awareness about the problem, I don't know.  But the real issue here is the ridiculous, hostile, and, honestly, infantile language given by the Chief Justice, and I'm sure, other members of the Court.  The law was created to protect animals and stop the spread of violent videos depicting animal cruelty.  I agree that the language needs to be tweaked, but the essence of the law is benevolent.  And a simple, 'the language of this law needs to be narrowed and specified,' would have sufficed.

Injustice System

`

*Before you read, I'd just like to let you know that I've made it so you don't have to sign in to comment now.  But I do ask that you please put your name at the end of your comment if you don't sign in, so that I know who wrote it.  Thanks!*

Every morning, I pick up the Daily Kent Stater and USA Today (and throw away the Sports section).  Today, there was a big news story in the Stater about the ongoing murder trial of a Kent State student.  The details of the trial are quite interesting and I've been following them since the news of this student's hospitalization after the assault which took place near campus.

But the murder trial is not my concern for this post.  I was reading the latest news about a key eyewitness testimony in the case.  The young man in question had been driving the defendant and another young man also being charged with murder on the night that the assault took place.  But one of the sort of side details tucked into the article reads like this:  "[the young man] first appeared in front of a grand jury Nov. 24, 2009 and pleaded "the Fifth" on the advice of his attorney, [name].  As he left the courtroom, he was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice and then booked and sent to [the county] jail, where he stayed until Dec. 24." 

Maybe I don't know that much about the justice system, but I do have an innate sense of human justice which is frantically waving red flags at me every time I read this.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people's rights.  The fifth amendment is supposed to protect people from self-incrimination.  How is it possible, then, that they could charge him with obstructing justice right after the trial?  How is that justice at all?  So he is allowed to plead the fifth in the court room, but as soon as he is out of that "safe haven," they can instantly arrest him for using his rights?  This smells like a devious loop-hole; like those who are supposed to be protecting our rights are playing the system in order to take those rights away in the name of, I don't know, "justice."  It's absurd!  And besides that, he was put in jail for an entire month for this "crime."  When reading the text of the amendment, it seems this is not actually against the law, per se:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."  But I have to say that it goes against the spirit of the law.  Judges and policemen should be there to protect our rights, not take them away.

I've always had a problem with the way the justice system works in regard to the amount of time criminals have to serve.  Sometimes murderers get 20 years in prison.  Sometimes they are put to death.  Does taking another life have gradations like this?  (And, just as a side note, I'd like to say that I am against the death penalty, but that's a subject for another post.  And I'm also against unnecessary jail time, but, again, let's save that for another day.)  I understand that not all crimes are equal and that every crime has to be judged based on the circumstances.  But sometimes the rulings really make absolutely no sense.  Does it sound right to you that using your Constitutional rights can land you in jail for a month?  Let me know what you think.

The other case I read about today in USA Today was about the Supreme Court case in which a Christian organization at a law school is suing the school because they took away funding from this organization for denying gays and non-Christians membership or participation in their group.  The school had anti-discrimination laws set up for every organization on campus, so they weren't treating them unfairly.  The group's argument was that "its members had a First Amendment right to limit participation to people who subscribe to their beliefs, including a ban on homosexual relations."  And that "making groups admit students who do not accept their message is a 'frontal assault on freedom of association.'"  But what angers me about this case is some justices are using the argument that 'you wouldn't want an atheist coming in and leading Bible studies or a bunch of atheists taking over the group.'  That kind of thinking is not even pertinent to the discussion.  The question was really, do they have a right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.  And the law says that no one should be discriminated against based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or disability.  No one should be exempt from that.  Not only that, but some justices have made the argument that allowing atheists or gays into the Christian group would be similar to allowing racist skinheads into the NAACP!  That was actually a comment by one of the conservative justices in USA Today.  I didn't make it up.

The whole argument is ridiculous.  We are talking about basic human and social rights.  And no one has the right to discriminate.  It is a slippery slope once we start condoning discrimination for religious organizations.  Conservatives hem and haw about how we came to this country for religious freedom and we fought the Revolutionary War for these rights.  (Which, I might add, was just not a huge reason that we fought the war.  But people like to make it out to be more of an issue than it ever was.)  Well, does their right to Christianity then trump others' rights to be Muslim or homosexual or atheist?  It's a joke, and it lessens even more my faith in our justice system.  Certainly some of the justices' views are colored by their religious affiliations.  Colored to the point where they often cannot see past them.  And when these justices are making rulings about important national issues that effect every citizen of this country, I would like to see a little less blindness and a little more impartial justice.