Glass-Full Thinking

The Supreme Court: An Enemy To Individual Rights and What That Means to the LGBT Legal Battle

2013-12-04T22:32:00.002-08:00

The Supreme Court has been historically viewed as the primary and effectual protector of individual rights in the American government. However, historical hindsight blinds us from viewing the Court as it truly is, the ultimate, slime-ball politician. A slime-ball politician(SBP) is one that determines what the popular public opinion is on an issue, then runs to the front of the line and claims to lead the people where they were already heading. He or she avoids pronouncing a clear stance on any issue until that issue is already hashed out in the public opinion sphere. He or she does not provide any real value to the discussion of public policy, but only wishes to maintain his or her legitimacy as a political leader. There are some instances where the SBP will express a clear opinion, but that opinion is usually in opposition to the relevant question of individual rights. This view is not new for many people when discussing government in the legislative or executive branches, but the judicial is held in high regard because it appears to be above politics. This is only because they defer judgement on key issues until they can judge where the public is going to land. This was true of slavery, the mid-twentieth century civil rights battle, economic rights in the New Deal era, and most recently the LGBT push for equal rights concerning sexuality and marriage.

The Slavery Era

The most famous Supreme Court case concerning slavery is Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). “Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taney decided that Scott lacked standing to sue in federal court as he was not a citizen of the United States of America.

This was hardly shocking as most of the men on the Supreme Court were raised in a world with slavery. They were raised in a world where the evils of slavery were not represented in media or culture. Taney was 70 years-old at the time of the Dred Scott decision. Taney was born in Maryland to a family of slave-owning tobacco farmers in Maryland. It is no wonder why he and the other older justices could not understand the individual rights arguments that are so plain to us today, that the color of skin should have no bearing on the question of standing in a court. Taney’s decision was meant to be the end of the question of slavery in the United States. Public opinion at the time was not clearly on one side or the other of the decision. Most citizens in the North found it distasteful while most citizens in the South(not including blacks) viewed it as a victory for the protection of property(slaves). However, not long after the decision was made, it was impugned by other justices on the Court. Justice Charles Hughes wrote that the Dred Scott decision was a “self-inflicted wound from which the court would not recover for over a decade.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference.” Taney and his Supreme Court were SBP’s. They were not questioning the morality of institutionalized slavery based on race. They were blinded by their own biases because of the world in which they had been raised. This is not an indictment of Taney and that Court as evil or immoral. Many of today’s Justices would probably make the same decision if they were reared during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Rather, it shows that the institution that is the Supreme Court of the United States is not above politics.

The New Deal Era

Nothing shows how wishy-washy the Supreme Court can be as much as its reaction to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The Bill was proposed by the sitting President, Franklin Roosevelt in response to several Supreme Court decisions invalidating many of Roosevelt’s first-wave, New Deal legislation. The bill, if passed, would allow the President to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court for every justice over the age of 70. At the time the Supreme Court was divided somewhat evenly along party lines(Democrat and Republican). However, the four conservative justices, often referred to as the Four Horsemen, were able to convince the decidedly “swing” justice, Owen Roberts, to vote with them against FDR’s programs. The measure eventually failed due to fears from legislators about the constitutionality of the proposed law. However, the political damage was done. Justice Owen Roberts began voting in favor of Roosevelt’s legislation. Roberts voted in favor of New Deal legislation in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937). Public opinion in favor of New Deal legislation also grew during this period and it while it may not directly infer causation, the correlation is undeniable.

New Deal legislation was significant to individual rights because it drastically changed the economic rights previously upheld by the Supreme Court. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the federal government was granted the power to regulate nearly all commerce because of the indirect effect an act of commerce might have on an interstate market. Many Supreme Court decisions supporting New Deal legislation had similar effects on individual economic liberties.

The Civil Rights Era

Dred Scott v. Sanford was the beginning of the Civil Rights Era, but since I’ve already broached that case I will start with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court upheld a law in Louisiana requiring hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and public places to serve blacks in separate, but seemingly equal, accommodations. In establishing the separate but equal doctrine, the Court said that segregation is recognized as a part of the states’s power to police. In the sole dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former slaveowner, said the ruling would "stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens." Segregation was a widely popular policy in the United States as late as 1942. “In June 1942, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) conducted one of the earliest available polls on the subject of race relations. It portrays a public wary of racial integration in many areas of social life, presenting a snapshot of public opinion about segregation before the issue rose to the top of the national political agenda.” If that was the national view in 1942, one can imagine that the American public might be less tolerant of racial integration when the Plessy decision was made in 1896. The trend continues: The Supreme Court supports as much individual liberty as public opinion will tolerate.

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was decided. It is widely seen as the turning point in Civil Rights era judicial decisions. The case was filed in Topeka, KS. “Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries.” Brown overturned Plessy in the realm of public education and sounded the death-knoll for segregation in general.

If we look at public opinion immediately after the Brown decision we see that public opinion seems to correlate with the Supreme Court’s decision here as well. “Just days after the unanimous decision in Brown, Gallup asked a national sample this question: ‘The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that racial segregation in the public schools is illegal. This means that all children, no matter what their race, must be allowed to go to the same schools. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?’ Almost 58% of all respondents and 80% of non-Southerners agreed with the decision initially.” In 16 years the approval of racial integration changed and so did the Supreme Court, upholder of individual liberty and rights. Once again the Court seems to have led the public in the direction they were already heading. Sounds like a SBP-Court to me.

The LGBT Era

Until 1958, the Supreme Court had consistently ruled against the party representing a LGBT interest. It wasn’t till One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) that the Court saw fit to extend Constitutional protections of free speech and association to this group. In this case One, Inc. was attempting to distribute a pro-gay periodical, "ONE: The Homosexual Magazine.” The Los Angeles postmaster declared the magazine to be obscene and refused to process it through the mail. The group sued and the Supreme Court agreed in a close 5-4 decision, though their opinion focused more on their 1st Amendment right to speech than it did any issue of homosexuality.

The next major Supreme Court case to focus on LGBT rights was Bowers v. Hardwick(1986). The Court ruled, 5–4 that consenting adults do not have a right to engage in homosexual acts in private. The Court said that the "right of privacy" under the Due Process Clause does not give homosexuals the right to practice sodomy. The "right to privacy" protects intimate marital and familial relations, but the Court said it does not cover gay sodomy because "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated.” According to a Gallup pole that asked, “Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?” between 32% to 44% Americans thought it should be illegal when Bowers was decided.

Public Opinion was clearly opposed to homosexual relationships when the Supreme Court decided Bowers and similar to their decisions in the Civil Rights Era, the Court followed public opinion in making its decision, rejecting the individual rights of Hardwick.

The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Bowers with Lawrence v. Texas(2003). “In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. ‘Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.’”

If we look at the same approval poll concerning homosexual and lesbian relationships from Gallup we see that approval of these relationships was at an all time high of 60%. The Court appears to have jumped at the opportunity to lead the public where it was already headed. While there was definitely a statistical backlash following the decision, poll numbers continued to rise consistently in favor of homosexual relationships after the Lawrence decision.

In 2008, Prop 8 was created in California in response to a California state court ruling in favor of marriage between homosexuals and lesbians. Prop 8 would define marriage as between one man and one woman in California’s constitution making the state court’s decision moot and ineffectual. The measure passed after a high-profile media campaign from both sides. However, The proposition's advocates filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in July of 2012, asking that the Court review the Proposition. The Supreme Court punted(lack of standing) the case back to the district court that had decided in favor of allowing homosexual marriages, effectually ruling in favor as well.

If we look at a Gallup pole that asks, “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?,” we see that by 2013 when the Court ruled on Prop 8(and DOMA) public opinion had shifted to a 53%-45% ratio in favor of same-sex marriages. Once again, the Supreme Court has managed to rule following public opinion almost exactly. They have jumped to the head of the public and showed ‘strong leadership’ in support of social civil liberties, while risking very little to do so. Slime-ball Politicians.

Future Individual Rights Legal Battles

What does this trend mean for future legal battles concerning individual rights? Firstly, it’s encouraging. While the does seem to follow public opinion, public opinion has changed gradually in favor of more individual liberties since the America’s founding. Tolerance for classes of people that were previously viewed as lesser classes has increased steadily over time. Since the Court does tend to follow public opinion, that would suggest that the Court will affirm more liberties as time marches forward. However, for those wishing to fight purely legal battles for rights that are currently unpopular(like polygamy and polyamory) their outlook is bleaker. It would seem more effective for advocates of such rights to focus their resources into changing public opinion, rather than winning the court battle.

Citations upon request(I'm too lazy to figure out how to put my footnote citations into this stupid blog formatting deal-thing)

Identity Crisis

2012-06-22T18:51:00.001-07:00

In the United States, and I would surmise this is true anywhere else, elections are big business. Campaign managers are professional electioneers, not necessarily working for a set of ideals or an influential candidate, but more for the professional success that can come with winning elections. Campaign workers use a bevy of statistics, psychological analysis, opinion polls, and a host of other tools in order to shepherd an electorate towards their candidate. They are the people, along with hyper-reactive analysts that create the politically correct world in which we all must live.

These people identify us using specifications that we probably would never use for ourselves (White, Black, Latino, Male, Female, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Young, Old, Conservative, Liberal, etc) outside of the politically correct world. They entice us into supporting their candidate because that candidate will do something that might benefit the group that they told us we’re apart of.

A lot of people don’t really like political correctness when we talk about an issue as being politically correct. However, these same people reverse their view when it’s an issue that they’ve been told to care about(i.e. Latinos should care about immigration policy because they are immigrants). The front page opinion article of the New York Times online website embodies this idea: “In a Divided America, It’s Old vs. Young” --David Leonhardt. The author produces a bevy of statistically supported ideas based around the idea that young people are significantly more liberal than older people. The ideas are based on mostly-scientifically conducted polls where a pollster will question random people about their age and their view on a certain issue.

When we read the article, we automatically identify with the one of the categories that that Leonhardt presents. We become either young or old. We could be somewhere in the middle, but when we are presented with the choice we choose the identifier that most resembles our view of ourself. From then on, we have decided that we are either young or old. The suggestion plants the identifiers that analysts, politicians and their organizations use to drive voters to their ticket. We respond to them as much or more than they respond to us.

So, how to we prevent ourselves from becoming victims of identifier planting? We must know who we are. And if you don’t really know who you are, pick some identifiers that you think you can relate to. Evaluate them and refine your own identity in the politically correct world before succumbing to the campaign/analyst-identifiers of who you are. Don’t participate in political arguments, supporting an idea that you’ve been told to support. Find the ideas that you truly espouse and fight for them. We can only fight the analysts and campaigners by being individuals, not their groups.

Can Trees Sue You?

2012-02-18T16:18:00.000-08:00

Can trees and other inanimate objects be given standing in Federal Courts? That is one of the most pertinent questions asked in Sierra Club v Morton. The decision came against the Sierra Club, but it was a close, 4-3, majority. Justice William Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion establishing the idea that inanimate objects, specifically natural objects, should be defended as entities such as ships, corporations, or even the government. This would allow the court to see cases where only the environment is harmed, and no human can prove specific and substantial harm to him/herself. The idea seems to simplify the legal process surrounding cases that protect the environment, but it takes for granted inherent contradictions in accepting the standing of inanimate objects, as well as expanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to areas in which it has no power to act.

The Supreme Court is created and empowered by the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution is a compact among several, sovereign state governments which represent the individual persons residing in the boundaries of those states. Those individuals are the base of power for the government. The Court has power to adjudicate only between conflicts that arise among the people or the governments and organizations created by those people. Corporations and ships, as Justice Douglas cites in his dissenting opinion, are entities created by individuals and therefore, are under the jurisdiction of the government to which those individuals are subject. Natural objects, such as plants, do not have the ability to contract or express desire in any way. They are objects that can only be legally expressed as property. If the Constitution is empowered by the consent, directly or tacitly, of the individuals it governs, then it cannot have power over ‘objects’ that are innately unable to express the desire to be governed by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not have authority to govern natural objects, then the Supreme Court does not have the power to recognize the standing of natural objects.
One may object to the previous argument, citing the power granted in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution: “The judicial power shall extend to...controversies between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” One may argue that because natural, inanimate objects are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, then they must, by default, be a part of a foreign jurisdiction, and by this granted power are given standing of original jurisdiction in the court. One can refer to the case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: In 1828, the state of Georgia passed a series of laws taking away the rights of local Cherokee Indians. The laws also authorized Cherokee removal from lands sought after by the state. In defense, the Cherokee cited treaties that they had negotiated, as an independent "nation," with the United States, guaranteeing the Cherokee nation both the land and independence. After failed negotiations with President Andrew Jackson and Congress, the Cherokee, under the leadership of John Ross, sought an injunction at the Supreme Court against Georgia to prevent its carrying out these laws. The Court, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and could not resolve it. The Court began by expressing sympathy with the Cherokees' dilemma, admitting that they had been persecuted and marginalized by America's European settlers, then asserted that Indian nations were both "foreign nations" and people within U.S. boundaries. In other words, the Cherokee, though at times viewed as an independent nation, were also a dependent people upon the nation that envelopes them. Thus, the Court asserted that "foreign nations," as used in the Constitution, could not include "Indian nations." Because the Constitution only allows the Supreme Court to hear cases brought by "foreign nations," not "Indian nations," the Court was not authorized to entertain this case and dismissed it. Let us assume that inanimate, natural objects are part of a “natural nation.” This nation, like Indian nations, while foreign from that of the United States, is also, in part, dependent upon the United States, as United States envelops the nation of natural, inanimate objects. The court is not authorized, by its own admission, to hear a case in which a foreign nation is also part of or enveloped by the United States.
There is a clear definition between an entity that can own and dispose of property and an entity that cannot. Individuals, corporations, and other entities created by individuals are of the type that can dispose of property. Natural objects, the kind of which Justice Douglas refers, are entities that cannot dispose of property because they are property. If inanimate objects were to be granted the same standing in a court as entities that could dispose of property, they would no longer be property. If those objects were no longer property there could be no physical property; for trees, minerals, water, land, and the such are the base level of property. The Fifth amendment not only protects the right to property, but recognizes that there is property to be had: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A pertinent example would be Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and, therefore, lacked standing to sue in Federal Court. They also ruled that the Fifth amendment held that Sandford could not be deprived of his property without the due process of law. The decision was eventually overturned with the passing of the 13^th and 14^th amendments to the Constitution, but those amendments abolished slavery and granted equal protection of the laws, regardless of race(among other things). They did not grant that a man’s property(a slave at the time of the Dred Scott case was legally considered property) had the right to sue in Federal Court. Likewise, natural objects, which constitute property, whether in the possession of an individual, or any other entity that is, at its base, able to discharge of that property do not have standing to sue because of their nature as property. Were the Constitution to be amended to grant natural objects standing, or even ‘citizenship’, which is what occurred to reverse the Dred Scott decision, only then would the Court be able to hear a case with a tree or natural object that was harmed in some way, but did not constitute a substantial effect on an individual as a party.
Let us assume that the Constitution was amended to include inanimate natural objects as parties with standing. What would be the inherent rights attributed to them, and who would be qualified to decide what that was? Without the ability to ever express, in any way, a desired state of being or rights, the preferred state of being of that object could not be respected by the court with any certainty. The court could never be certain. in any ruling, that it was actually ruling to the benefit or protection of the object and its undefined rights. Would an inanimate, natural object be allowed to sue another inanimate, natural object? Could a shore sue a waterway for the damages that water erosion causes to the shore? Would individual persons have standing to sue a hurricane, a flood, or an earthquake. Without the ability to ever contract an object is property. Dead men may have contracted during their lives to deal with their property as they see fit after their lives have ended. However, once those men have died their assets are subject only to those contracts. The dead men can contract no further and therefore have no right to their property. They, in fact, become property themselves to be dealt with by those with whom they have contracted during their lives, or the period of time in which they are able to contract and express their desire to contract. Inanimate, natural objects are as dead men that have never expressed their desire to contract. The object, without ever expressing desire of any kind, the court, again, is unable to rule with any certainty in favor or against that object, as a party, in a dispute. Therefore, the object lacks standing in any court of men, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and is a property to be dealt with by those entities who have the ability to express contraction.
In the dissenting opinion in the case of Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice Douglas says, “Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life which it represents will stand before the court - the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community...” Justice Douglas admits a legal difference between those who advocate protecting all natural environments as they are, and those who have spent time and energy to enjoy the aesthetic, and psychic benefits that natural environments offer as resources. That legal difference is that of property and ownership. In Locke’s 2^nd Treatise on government, from which much of the founders drew ideas to form the Constitution, Locke writes that one gains property by laboring for it. Once one has labored for something, it is theirs. Those people that have labored to experience the aesthetic and psychic benefits of the natural environments that have been unclaimed by other legitimate means have a certain type of ownership of that land. Those people can be granted legal standing under the protection of property. However, those simply advocating for the protection of the environment as a whole, or those who have not labored to make a specific environment, in a sense, their property have no standing in the court. Property rights give those with a vested interest in protecting specific environments a means of protecting that specific property, while also protecting the right to pursue happiness and wealth of those, like the Disney company, by allowing them the opportunity to lawfully develop unused resources.

WHAT'S YOUR PRICE?

2011-11-01T10:21:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article dealing with government waste, specifically NASA’s Webb telescope program. Let me copy/paste the facts for you:

“NASA's preposterous Webb Space Telescope project. It was announced in 2002 as a project that would cost $1.2 billion (all figures in this item are in current dollars) and launch no later than 2010. In 2006, NASA said the cost had risen to $2.6 billion and the launch date slipped to 2014. In 2008, NASA said the cost was up to $5.2 billion. Last week NASA told Congress that it needs $8.7 billion for the project and cannot launch before 2018...

the House of Representatives appeared to cancel the top-heavy Webb telescope project last spring, zeroing it out of a budget bill. This was when Barack Obama and John Boehner were swearing they would reduce government spending. Canceling the Webb was among the few specific examples of actual savings mentioned by either. This week, the Senate is expected to add back $500 million for the "canceled" project. Much of the work on the Webb is being done in Maryland, and Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski has dutifully carried water for every NASA money request. Mikulski argues that Webb spending creates jobs. So would hiring people to dig holes and then fill them up. Government should either create jobs that are beneficial to society, or cut spending so that Americans can make their own decisions about how resources should be allocated. Creating wasteful jobs is a negative for society.”1

So the question for the people of Maryland and almost anywhere else is “What’s your Price?” What government hand-out will it take for you to lay down your political support or vote? American politics has transformed into a handout system where you benefit the most by doing the least. My price, at least for the moment, is a Federal Pell Grant that allows me to attend college nearly tuition free.2

I would largely base my political support on the candidate that will allow me to continue to receive this handout. In principle that is not very different from what the middle managers at NASA have been doing with the Webb Telescope program.

This type of system has led our government and our individuals to compile huge amounts of debt, with no clear way to repay it all. So, how do we change the Greek-like path that we’re headed down? I’m not sure, and I’m fairly certain that those in charge of the government now aren’t sure either. We have a system that allows us to change who’s in charge every few years. Why haven’t we used it to change? Because we’re comfortable with the system right now. We have yet to feel any real and lasting consequences on personal levels, and politicians have taken us far into debt to keep it that way. We, Americans, have given up our political power for a few thousand dollars in handouts every year so that power mongering, idiotic politicians can borrow TRILLIONS in our name. Take back America. Vote for Ron Paul!

¹ http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7175444/tmq-says-defenses-solidified-slowed-early-season-nfl-offensive-explosion

² Whether that education is really worth the thousands of dollars taxpayers pay every year is highly questionable.

63,000,000 and why are we still Counting?

2010-04-14T01:22:00.000-07:00

America: Land of criticism, Home of ironies. Maybe that is a little harsh, but when it comes to social acceptance, we tend to be critical, two-faced jerks. We want people, not ourselves, to be everything to everyone at all times, especially celebrities. As soon as someone steps into the spotlight their flaws are magnified, amplified, and shouted to the world till we get bored and move on to the next juicy, over-hyped topic. This week it’s the Duggar family. All 21 of them star in the TLC network’s 19 kids and counting. The show chronicles their lives, challenges and accomplishments while highlighting the fact that they have an absurd amount of kids…or do they?

Popular wisdom suggests that the trials of raising such a barn-ful of hungry, smelly, annoying poop-factories are beyond any two parent’s capabilities. There are just too many responsibilities that exit the womb with the child and those responsibilities are multiplied exponentially when you add more children. The prestigious Dr. Douglas Downey, a general surgeon based in Florida, offered his opinion to People magazine: “I think that’s too many kids. From a resource perspective, there is no way you can give the emotional and financial resources you would need to support that many children…” (People).

While it may be true that some people are unable or perhaps simply unwilling to bring that many annoyances into the world, it seems that the Duggars are the exception to Downey’s parenthood rule. Not only are every one of their children bright, polite, and well-functioning members of society, but they do it under the spotlight of celebrity. Perhaps we must separate at the children’s needs situationally: Emotional, Social and Financial.

Some may find it surprising to learn that duct tape and closet with a decent lock won’t provide all the emotional development that a child needs. Experts actually suggest that a healthy dose of parental attention can also encourage young people’s development. According to psychologist, France Byatt-Smith there are some specific things that parents can do to keep their children from future residences highlighted by padded walls:

1. Showing our love with warm and gentle touch, hugs and kisses we can fulfil their first need, which is to be loved. Some children will like to be hugged more than others
and it is important to respect this.

2. Showing interest in their activities and being pleased with achievements and improvements and not comparing them with their siblings and others will also respect their individuality.

3. Acknowledging their strengths will give them belief in themselves. A ‘can do’ feeling enhances their progress.

4. Giving lots of attention will show them that they are valued as well as being loved. Children want to please and your praise and attention will make them feel good.

5. Allowing your child to make choices, for example, about what clothes to wear shows them that you trust them as well

6. Having a routine helps them to feel safe and secure because they can anticipate what will happen next, however the routine does not need to be too rigid or inflexible.

7. Clear boundaries and limits will help to keep them feeling secure and give their lives structure and stability. ‘Allowing children to make choices (within limits) and to live with the consequences is a respectful, effective method of discipline.’

The Duggars, as well as any other successful parents, practice most if not all of these things (when their children are free of the closet and duct tape). Critics who state that the Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar cannot possibly find the time to give the type of specialized, individual attention that is described above to each of their nineteen kids neglect to acknowledge the contribution of siblings. By correctly teaching their older children to care for their younger siblings, Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar have expanded their reach and ability as parents beyond the 24 hours per day limit. That’s not the only benefit either; the older children now have real experience in parenting for the next Duggar generation. That’s not as easy when you only have two children.

That leads to another issue that has ignited the blog-o-sphere like a discarded cigarette by the Hindenburg. How can children who are so wrapped up and busy with their own family have time to construct social relationships outside of the family unit? We know it’s possible for the Duggar’s because 22 year-old Josh married Anna Keller on September 26, 2008. While a large family could discourage children from looking outside the family for social interaction, it allows those children to practice developing meaningful relationships while still developing. This practice can then translate into future meaningful relationships. However, a child who has few or no siblings with which to practice social skills may be forced to look outside the family to fulfill those social needs. This not only weakens the family structure as a whole, but it can also have lasting negative effects on social ability.

Time columnist, Jeffrey Kluger contends that the biggest influence on children’s developmental lives is siblings. “From the time they are born, our brothers and sisters are our collaborators and co-conspirators, our role models and cautionary tales. They are our scolds, protectors, goads, tormentors, playmates, counselors, sources of envy, objects of pride. They teach us how to resolve conflicts and how not to; how to conduct friendships and when to walk away from them. Sisters teach brothers about the mysteries of girls; brothers teach sisters about the puzzle of boys. Our spouses arrive comparatively late in our lives; our parents eventually leave us. Our siblings may be the only people we'll ever know who truly qualify as partners for life”, says Kluger (Kluger). Perhaps the variety of options of role models and “partners for life” provided in the Duggar household allows each child to choose to become who they wish to be, instead of what the world wants them to be.

One of the largest areas of criticism in Duggar-ville is the perceived inability of the parents to provide the physical needs for all 19 (and counting) of their children. However, People responds to this by saying, “Critics who believe the Duggar children are a strain on government finances can rest easy: The Duggars live debt free in a 7,000-sq.-ft. home they built themselves, and Josie's medical costs are covered by insurance. They've made their living by being frugal, profitable real-estate investments and earnings from their book The Duggars: 20 and Counting! and their TLC show” (People). It would seem that those critics question their own ability to provide for such a flock and superimpose that onto the Duggars.

If you move a little outside of the mainstream, big-family critics you arrive at the special group of people who claim that the Duggars are selfishly overpopulating the world and hogging resources that should be divided up by several smaller families. While it may seem silly to blame a worldwide issue on a single family, these critics have a valid point based off of their belief system, just as the Duggars have a valid defense in when built upon their own belief system. Let’s explore the latter and then see how the former opposes it.

The Duggars are “committed to the belief that each child is a gift from God” (Stanek). They often cite passages of the Bible to give credence to their perceived eccentric lifestyle. However, the main tenet of their belief system is the principle of faith in God: That He has commanded us (humans) to multiply and replenish the Earth and we must have faith that God will provide the means to support this ever-growing population. If we believe in this God, then naturally, such a large family is not only personally enjoyable, but also a fulfillment of our spiritual obligation.

In opposition, if we remove belief in a higher power from the equation, our main concerns focus on our own comfort and survival. We worry that if we do not provide for future generations ability to live, nobody will. This is why governments who don’t recognize a higher power often resort to forced birth control and sterilization (see PRC, USSR). The morality of those measures is determined by our beliefs.

Whether we agree with the Duggars or not, I believe there is one point we can all agree upon: Duct tape and a closet with a decent lock will always be effective parenting tools.

Where's My Coffee?

2010-04-05T09:42:00.001-07:00

As a college student at the beginning of my higher-education-roadway-to-billionaire-status lifestyle, I have a myriad of depression-inducing options with which to fill my summer. I could backpack through Europe or enhance my Halo world ranking. I could work a menial minimum-wage job to attempt upsetting my precarious government grant status or, most intriguing of all I could work a menial minimum-wage job without sniffing the sweet stench of that $6.50 per hour paycheck. In other words, or rather another word, internship!

I know it sounds like sunshine and daisies all summer long, but perhaps there is a drawback not only to myself, but to our society as a whole. Maybe all that sunshine will simply make a desert. At least that is what Steven Greenhouse hypothesizes in his recent New York Times article, Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say. Greenhouse says that government officials from several states and even on the federal level are worried that employers are calling their minimum wage positions internships to cut costs without adhering to the federal legal criteria for unpaid internships.

The U.S. Department of Labor has outlined a list of criteria that potential unpaid internships must fulfill completely in order to be sanctioned: 1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school. 2. The training is for the benefit of the trainee 3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation. 4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded. 5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and 6. The employer and the trainee understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training ()

Number 4 seems to be the foundation idea that the rest of the ignored rules sit upon. The benefit of an internship for an employer should be an investment in training a potential employee and increasing the number of qualified people to work in the industry, not an unpaid temporary slave. With respect to the “you gotta pay your dues, son” way of doing business, unpaid lackey work is not only illegal, it is unethical.

Employers who offer internships should look at those positions as investment opportunities. The more that they wisely invest, the greater the potential return should be. However, when a company skates the Department of Labor criteria they set themselves up for failure in the courtroom and future recruiting of quality employees. The California’s Private Attorney General Act allows anyone at the company to sue for labor violations, even if they themselves are not affected by the violation. That means it only takes one ethical bystander to keep companies from becoming nineteenth-century southern plantations. Other states would be wise to use similar laws.

A company’s reputation is incredibly valuable in every aspect of business. Take into consideration the expense that companies incur when managing public relations. When an employer treats its internship investments badly now, they naturally receive the dividends later. Maybe that talented, under-used intern becomes a valuable asset at a competitor. Maybe the coffer-gopher had a million dollar idea that was overlooked because he used too much cream and not enough sugar. Successful companies value potential and develop assets to become stronger together.

On second thought, Halo sounds a whole lot better than that internship anyways.

Works Cited

Franzen, Willy. "Are Unpaid Internships Illegal? | One Day, One Internship." Internships for College Students | One Day, One Internship. 07 Sept. 2008. Web. 02 Apr. 2010. .

Greenhouse, Steven. "Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 02 Apr. 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2010. .

"Unpaid Internships - Common but Illegal." Labor and Employment Law Blog. 02 Apr. 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2010. .

Real Funny Guys...

2010-03-29T09:41:00.000-07:00

According to a new poll, eighty-six percent of people questioned say that our system of government is broken. (See "CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.") The reality is that this feeling has pervaded the American thought since SNL and Jon Stewart became mediums for legitimate political discussion. Far from crucifying the individuals that make up these entertaining escapes from somber political analysis, I wish to show how the satire defines the reality and why this is so poisonous to our political freedom.

To start we should explore what makes our system of government work. The overriding principle that defines our government is that its power stems from the people it governs, as opposed to the early English monarchies who claimed their power originated from deity. We use varying forms of popular election to select every governmental office from the President to your local dog-catcher. When we elect these people we give them a part of our power to act in behalf of those who elected them within their appointed responsibilities. Abraham Lincoln reiterated this point in his famous Gettysburg Address by stating that we are a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.” It is important to note that this system requires serious involvement from the people.

Next we’ll examine how the people and the people’s government act and react to a media influence on political issues. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press.” The idea was that an active press was essential as a way of educating the population. To work freely, the press must be free from control by the state. Essentially the media was to act as a people’s check on government. In order for that to operate effectively the people must be able to take the media seriously; and that is why the legitimization of sources like Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” or NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” undermines the whole system.

Www.thedailyshow.com claims that its program is “unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy” (Daily Show). While that is painfully obvious in the programming, there is a tendency for viewers to mirror the type of sarcasm that the show uses when reporting on what should be seriously important issues. However, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show producers are not the originators of this sarcastic view of the political world.

For years news anchors and political analysts have moved away from focusing on the issues that concern the people and towards scrutinizing the political process. They tend not to question policies and laws as much as they question the popularity of the people involved in the process. This allows the media to affect changes in public opinion the same way they would in a supermarket tabloid. Perhaps what The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live are merely torchbearers, taking the torch from more serious news sources and attempting to make it more entertaining. However, this does not absolve them of all blame in the matter.

During the most recent political election cycle Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey was asked to do a satirical parody of the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. This was nothing out of the ordinary because the show had been doing satirical coverage of presidential elections for more than 40 years. What made this character special was the way other media outlets and the public as a whole responded. Suddenly a woman who had achieved praise as a mayor, governor and mother was recognized almost wholly and completely as Fey’s SNL caricature, which was less than flattering. Whether or not someone intended to do harm to Mrs. Palin’s campaign is not nearly as troubling as the ability of this media source to essentially change reality.

Without delving too far into the philosophical issues surrounding what reality is, I would offer the simple idea that our perception tends to define what reality is. So changing reality is almost as simple as affecting people’s perception. When Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart’s protégé, presents the very serious story of John Edward’s infidelity in a satirical manner, Colbert is changing perception of not necessarily John Edwards, but the issue itself. No longer is Edwards seen as a Senator from North Carolina, but as a caricature in a political cartoon whose only issue is how much campaign money to spend on child support.

Perhaps the real problem lies not with Stewart, Colbert, and SNL but with the viewers who consistently choose this type of political programming over Meet the Press or any other hard political news source. Maybe the satirists are only providing a product to supply a demand created by us. Because we are able to express ourselves almost without restraint due to the expansive rights of the First Amendment, could it be that we desire to plaster over our serious issues with a heavy coating of spoofed spackle?

Let’s look at another example. Recently CNN attempted to dive into satirical news with its program Not Just Another Cable News Show. The majority of program time was spent satirizing video segments that had been collected by the network in a myriad of subject areas. One such clip featured 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry attempting to make a joke. It went something like this: “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.” Pretty funny, right? The immediate response from satirists was not focused towards the actual issues of education and war, but towards the personality of John Kerry.

Jay Leno on The Tonight Show: “John Kerry has apologized for saying those who do not study hard and do their homework will get stuck in Iraq. Now, those that do not campaign well and are boring, will end up stuck in the Senate” (Kurtzman).

Jimmy Kimmel on Jimmy Kimmel Live: “Senator John Kerry gave his opponents in the struggling Republican Party a much needed distraction when he told a college audience on Monday that if you don’t do well in school, you might get stuck in Iraq. Some people are taking that as a slam against our troops. Kerry says it was a botched joke about the president being dumb. It doesn’t bode well when you try to make a joke about someone being dumb and you wind up looking even dumber” (Kurtzman).

Conan O’Brien on Late Night with Conan O’Brien: “Big story, of course, is John Kerry finally apologized. ... Some political analysts are now saying that Senator John Kerry's botched joke about the troops hurt his chances in becoming president in 2008. Apparently, Kerry's chances of becoming president went from zero to less than zero” (Kurtzman).

It appears to be a very subtle distinction, but the focus is on Kerry’s personality instead of on the issue at hand. Why is this a problem? Satirists are able to redirect our attention from impactful issues and towards less consequential areas within the political structure, and because we’re too busy laughing at politician’s missteps, we don’t give the required meaningful participation that the American Democracy/Republic requires to function in our behalf. If we are unable to pull ourselves out of the doldrums of satire we must ostensibly change the primary checks and balances outlined in the United States Constitution. We must relinquish the democracy because we as a people are unable to act to our own best judgment. However, we can also choose to shake off the chains if satirical politics and seriously challenge our political representatives on issues of policy. If we the people are the same people that the founders referred to in the Constitution then this is what we must do.

Works Cited

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | About the Show | Biography | The Daily Show." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. .

Eisold, PhD, Ken. "Our Broken Government | Psychology Today." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness Find a Therapist. 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. .

Kurtzman, Daniel. "John Kerry Jokes - Late-Night Jokes About John Kerry." Political Humor - Jokes Satire and Political Cartoons - About.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. .

Patterson, Troy. "How Political Satire Got so Flabby. - By Troy Patterson -." Slate Magazine. 08 Apr. 2008. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. .

Steinhauser, Paul. "Survey: Most Americans Believe Government Broken - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 22 Feb. 2010. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. .

Through the Magnifying Glass

2010-02-25T23:12:00.000-08:00

Bill Gates once said that “[t]he first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.” Perhaps the same can be said about the quality of inter-human communication. As the way we communicate changes from face to face conversations to Facebook chats and text messaging, some pundits have suggested that we allow the technology to become more important than its purpose. One such pundit, Sherry Turkle, recently addressed this supposed issue in Forbes Magazine. Let’s take a look at what she has to say.

She organizes her issues into five main points. The first is essentially that “people…[can] blend their real and virtual lives” (Turkle). Artificial worlds like Second Life have allowed people to live, well, a second life. The implied negative is that the more one lives virtually the less one lives in reality. While it seems logical that you can’t have your cake and it too, the reality (virtual or not) is that technology allows us to have a bigger cake and eat more of it. Our quality of life and ease of survival have permitted us to use much more time for leisure activities. While a select few may take this to a dangerous extreme, this technology is, as Mr. Gates insinuates, only magnifying people’s natural tendencies.

Turkle goes on to make two very valid points: Adults spend so much time trying to stay connected that there is little individual outside the connection and young people are less likely to develop independence because of increased technological connectivity. Both of these issues, at face value, appear to be erode our individuality, but when we look a little deeper we find that this may not be true. If it is true that our connectivity transfers some of our individuality to the people or things that we are connected to, then does that not allow us to define our individual in a more concrete way? Maybe what we consider to be deterioration is simply a transformation of our individuality.

Turkle’s fourth point relates to the lost importance of privacy in a virtual world. “We have become…accustomed to living our lives in public,” argues Turkle (Turkle). The worry here is that Big Brother is there and no one is worried about what he is looking at. It’s as if George Orwell’s 1984 didn’t make it past the nineties. Turkle, with reason, fears governmental abuse that might stem from decreased online privacy. However, what she doesn’t take into account is that the government itself has become increasingly transparent with the same technological windfall that alarms Turkle so deeply.

Turkle’s final point is that too often we use technology to ignore our immediate situations. Try as we might to find a valid criticism to this point, there is no needle in this haystack. For those who have tried to give a presentation, teach a class, or just have a conversation, they find that they are often “put on pause” for a more pressing issue occurring across the cyber-verse. Not only can it potentially destroy the confidence of the individual or group being ignored, but it generally keeps us from correctly prioritizing our lives. Still, like Bill Gates says, technology only magnifies what is already there, daydreams.

We must acknowledge that as time rolls forward connectivity rides with it. We cannot kill the messenger, the cell phone, the internet, or any of the other advancements that magnify our society’s values. However, we can focus on what values we allow those technologies to magnify.

Turkle, Sherry. "Can You Hear Me Now? - Forbes.com." Forbes.com - Business News, Financial News, Stock Market Analysis, Technology & Global Headline News. 07 May 07. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

Thinking with the Idiot Box

2010-02-19T08:03:00.000-08:00

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. If that is true, then I just managed to read around 43,200,000 words in a little under half an hour, while watching my favorite TV show, The Golden Girls. I’m sure that’s some sort of world record. At 24 pictures per second, Dorothy, Rose, Sophia, and Blanche presented a literary library that comes close to approaching the word length of our United States Tax Code. Thanks to some quick maneuvering by the IRS, though, the tax code sits safely atop the word length totem pole. But, according to some academics 43,200,000 words from the Miami Masterpiece doesn’t hold a candlestick to Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations, which, to be numerically accurate, has only 185,258 words.

That’s not to say that Charles Dickens wouldn’t have made a great writer for The Golden Girls. Can you imagine the spicy romances that would bubble between Blanche Devereaux and David Copperfield on those warm Florida weekends? You’re right; neither can I. The point is that in reality people fret over how little their child reads every day, and how long that child spends in front of the ‘idiot box’.

In a recent back-and-forth between Steven Johnson and Dana Stevens, the two columnists advocate opposite sides of an issue that has only recently become a two-sided argument. Johnson, who wrote a deceptively titled article named “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, advocates television as a means of education and learning. He cites such plot-rich entertainment as “24” and “Hill Street Blues” as tools that force “kids…to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, [and] recognizing long-term patterns” (Johnson). No longer do the Hardy Boys or Encyclopedia Brown help our youngsters develop cognitive analysis skills. Today, Jack Bauer has become the artist who molds young people’s soft, jelly-like minds into the ultimate, terrorist-fighting apparatuses.

In sharp contrast, Dana Stevens points out the fallacies of Johnson’s arguments essentially arguing that the complex plot threads that have evolved over time have done little more than encourage viewers to “watch more TV” (Stevens). Touché. Sadly, she does little more than present theories based on the age-old ‘TV makes you dumber’ syllogism. Her biggest logical flaw is that she starts her burden of proof with the previously stated idea as the basis, making her argument utterly subjective from the start. However, in her defense, she does use the same sarcastic logic that made Dorothy Zbornak (the tall one with the deep voice) so vivacious.

I find it difficult to accept either side of this argument as the ultimate, end-of-all-ends, gavel-dropping truth. I can accept that large amounts of television, coupled with little or no supplemental education, tend to leave our minds in that pre-Jack Bauer, jelly-like state. However, I can think of no better way to transmit an idea than through such an all encompassing medium as television. If the true purpose of the traditionally ‘intelligent’ means of learning, books, was to transmit ideas than television makes books look like the Sesame Street of idea communication. Books, like Big Bird and Elmo, talk slowly so we can understand. They generally occupy a large amount of our time in order to communicate a single idea, when a well constructed television program can communicate an entire multi-layered experience in a matter of minutes. In response to that, though, one might say that that experience is not internalized in the same way that a reader internalizes written ideas. But, what if we were to use the best of both ideas? What if we were able to supplement either written learning with media learning or vice versa? Is it possible that Stevens and Johnson can end their episode as enjoyably as an episode of The Golden Girls? You decide.

Works Cited

Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 24 Apr. 2005. Web. 19 Feb. 2010. .

Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box - By Dana Stevens -." Slate Magazine. 25 Apr. 2005. Web. 19 Feb. 2010. .

The Finger-pointing Fat-Fighting Family-Saving Fight

2010-02-10T06:47:00.000-08:00

Did you know Americans have a constant need to point fingers? When there is a missing piece of pie from Mom’s famous lemon-meringue, somebody had to point their big finger at me. Whenever the garbage didn’t get taken out, somebody ominously pointed that dreaded finger at me, like the grim reaper had finally decided my time was up. Chances are, at one time or another, we have all been victims of the pointed finger. There is an even better chance that we happen to be the hand behind the finger more often than not. Such is the case with America’s fat problems.

In attempting to identify the causes of such an overwhelmingly huge (excuse the pun) problem, the onus has been unfairly placed on the people who provide us with such delicious delectables as the McFish, pork rinds, and the ever-ironic, low fat mayonnaise. That’s right! We’re trying to blame food manufacturers for force feeding us the foods we love the most. “The obesity finger-pointing is at things that have always been here. Sugar-coated cereals and fast food were there before the obesity epidemic, so why blame them now,” contends Ed Slaughter, director of advertising and trends research, Rodale Inc (Swann). The answer is simple, Ed. We blame them because they create a single, identifiable enemy. If we just defeat McDonald’s, Burger King, Al-Qaida, Pizza Hut, and the guy responsible for Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe, all of our obesity problems will be solved.

The real reason we blame these companies is because we have such a difficult time turning that chubby little finger back on our own balloon-like gut. Like a big, nation-wide Alcoholics Anonymous support group, we have all let each other slip into nasty, little nutrition habits. So, in an attempt to make amends, and fulfill the final step of my ‘Eaters Anonymous’ Twelve Step Program, I will officially point my finger at the real culprit: the family.

The institution which, until recently, provided the guidance and education in almost every aspect of young people’s lives has been under attack for years. It was this institution that taught the young in society how to act, and, in this case, what to eat. It was the family that sat at the table for breakfast and dinner with home-cooked, generally healthy meals. And, with the deterioration of the importance of the family in our modern society, so goes the healthy habits that it had supported. Popular feminists champion the mother who leaves the home to achieve professional success, when in reality she sacrifices the ability to teach and develop skills that contribute to her family’s well-being. Too often, kids pick up a Mc-whatever for breakfast, lunch, and dinner to replace a healthy, home-cooked meal.

Now before the Susan B. Anthon-ites gather their pitchforks and torches, let me say that the blame should not all be placed on the collective shoulders of women everywhere. Men are more likely more to blame for the state of the family now. Too often, irresponsible jerks leave a young family to scrounge for itself because that little ‘poop-machine’ was cramping their style, leaving the mother as the only person willing to actually bring home the super-fatty, unhealthy bacon.

The lack of familial responsibility is the culprit responsible for stealing our healthy eating habits. The fast food industry is a result of the demand created from the void that was the sit-down, home cooked meal. Now we need to ask ourselves, so what if the Goodyear Blimp is the real American Idol?

In an article written by General Johnnie E. Wilson, the General places obesity in a category that would surprise most all of us, national security. “Obesity, it turns out, is the No. 1 reason why applicants fail to qualify for military service,” writes the General (Wilson). That’s right, folks! According to this General and several of his colleagues, America will soon be too fat to defend itself militarily. Sadly Gen. Wilson makes no call to reenlist the family in the fight against obesity, but, like First Lady, Michele Obama, focuses on changing school lunches. “Where do we start,” asks the General, “One place is the schools…Today, retired admirals and generals are calling on Congress to support at least $1 billion per year in new funding that will help to improve nutrition standards for meals served in school, after school, and in child care settings” (Wilson). It sounds like the key to defeating McDonald’s, Burger King, Al-Qaida, Pizza Hut, and the guy responsible for Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe. However, according to Ed Slaughter, schools are not so much the Russia of the Communist Obesity Bloc as they are Albania. “What’s different is that women left the home and went to work—there’s been a change in home and family meal patterns,” explains Ed, and he is right.

The Admirals, Generals, First Lady, and every one of the salivating lunch litigators must start their fight against fat with the family. This is the battlefield that will define whether the war is won by diabetes, heart disease, and the guy responsible for Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe or by the tremendously physically fit American Army recruits.

We, as Americans, must value our nutrition enough to educate ourselves and our loved ones. We must look at this as an individual problem that can only be solved by the individual. We must acknowledge that the family is our ‘Eaters Anonymous’ support group, not corporations and big government. We must return to the core values that made Beaver Cleaver so adorable, not to mention skinny.

Works Cited

Swann, Lauren. "Seeking solutions to obesity: issues surrounding obesity—from its causes to consumer and industry perspectives to possible solutions—were discussed at a recent conference | Prepared Foods | Find Articles at BNET." Find Articles at BNET | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. Oct. 2004. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.

Wilson, Johnnie E. "Obesity threatens national security." Atlanta News, Sports, Atlanta Weather, Business News. 08 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

Zinczenko, David. "Don't Blame the Eater - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 23 Nov. 2002. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

The 'Swiss Cheese' Rebuttal

2010-01-29T11:55:00.000-08:00

I believe the world is flat, the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, and I am the center of our Universe. I also believe obesity is not a contributing factor to the growing epidemics of heart disease and type-2 diabetes. I know it sounds ridiculous, but the world is actually made out of Swiss cheese, and the moon is as flat as the paper you are reading! At least this is the kind of outdated logical paths that Paul Campos follows in his article, “Being Fat is OK.”

He starts by complaining that “according to the federal government, [he]’s fat” (Campos). Which is apparently impossible considering he runs “[6,000,000] to [7 bazillion] miles per week and [is] in excellent overall health” (Campos). Campos is using a Body Mass Index figure that compares an average person’s height to an acceptable weight level. If a person is outside of the acceptable weight level, that person is considered either overweight or obese depending on whether their weight infraction is a misdemeanor or felony. The obvious, and stated, error with this type of calculation is that most people, excluding Chris Farley’s corpse, are not made completely out of triglycerides (fat cells).

According to the Center for Disease Control’s website, “It is important to remember…that BMI is not a direct measure of body fatness and that BMI is calculated from an individual’s weight which includes both muscle and fat. As a result, some individuals may have a high BMI” (CDC). Could it be that the extra light-years that Mr. Campos has logged on his rock-hard legs have contributed to a higher muscle mass?

Campos, next, uses the age-old tactic of putting the industry responsible for every atrocity committed against mankind, including such works as genocide, supporting communism, and destroying parts of the space-time continuum, in the same queen-size bed as our beloved government. Suffice it to say, Campos presents nothing more than a petty claim in supporting this suspicious supposition. However, for the purpose of being able to undermine the rest of Campos’s claims, we will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Campos claims that the figures that put the greatest nation ever to grace the planet Earth with its presence, The United States, at the top of the overweight totem pole “are based on a remarkably elaborate series of lies” (Campos). The first being: “fat people are less healthy than thin people because they are fat” (Campos). The author cites the super prestigious New England Journal of Medicine which ambiguously claims that the actual cause of the Swine Flu epidemic was that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, and the “data linking overweight and death are limited, fragmentary, and often ambiguous” (Campos). Apparently, the editors of the New England Journal of Med icine were referring to something they learned in the popular book, “Doubting Obvious Evidence for Dummies”. This is, again, the inherent problem in “Lie No. 2: We know that fat people would be as healthy as thin people if they lost weight. In the words of the editors of the New England Journal: “We simply do not know whether a person who loses 20 pounds will acquire the same reduced risk as a person who started out 20 pounds lighter .. . some (studies have) even suggested that weight loss increases mortality” (Campos). Due to the overwhelming success of the original argument, Campos decided to keep on referring to the ‘Dummy’ book again.

The third and final lie that Campos presents is that “fat people can choose to be thinner.” He states that “the failure rate for diets is estimated to be between 90 percent and 98 percent” (Campos). The first question in response is: Who says? By what scientific process has Campos deducted that fat people are incapable of becoming, well, not fat?

Finally, Campos ends with “we don’t know the answer to such basic questions as [whether the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, or whether the earth is flat, or, for that matter whether I am the center of our Universe]” (Campos ext.). Sure we do Paul. Can’t you see the ominous, Swiss cheese-looking, holes up there?

Works Cited

Campos, Paul. "Being fat is OK." Judaism: The Jewish site. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. .

"Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: BMI: About Adult BMI | DNPAO | CDC." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. .

Scott Brown, Referendum on American Politics

2010-01-22T10:06:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week Scott Brown, from Wrentham Mass., was elected to the United States Senate. This was the first official show of the return of conservatism in a nation overrun with big-spending, morally insecure, slimeballs that have both D's and R's next to their names. Brown ran on traditional conservative policies like lower taxes, less spending, increased national defense, and, more recently, anti-socialistic health reform. But, more importantly, Brown ran as an advocate for real change, as opposed to the feigned platform of former President Barack Obama...(I'm just looking forward to 2012).

When President Obama made 'Real Change' the main tenet of his 2008 campaign, he fed off the growing sentiment that Washington and its actors had given up on doing the right thing for the people of the United States at the expense of their popularity with the media. It wasn't so much that the ever-important independent voter was enchanted with the liberal ideals that President Obama supported, it was that they were disenchanted with the fact that the Republican party had become phantom proponents of big government spending. The independents weren't supporting Barack Obama, they were punishing incumbent Republicans.

Now the tables have turned. Voters didn't get what they were expecting with the new administration and congressional Democratic super-majority. They got a government more focused on the values that they opposed. They got a big dose of self-identification and, with the election of Scott Brown, are expressing their new-found identity. We are a country made up of a middle-right majority. Even in places that are traditionally viewed as blue, when it comes down to it, we all want to be red. We believe in personal responsibility. We believe in helping our neighbors, but we don't need the national government to tell us when and how to help. We are Americans, and Scott Brown is our senator.