People are pissed off, which is an understatement. I have been reading about the "Occupy" protests that are popping up in the major financial cities; the latest in Chicago was 7000 strong. Capitalism has a stranglehold on all branches of the government including the Supreme Court. But as the Jim Morrison sang, "they got the guns but we got the numbers."
I have advocated revolution for years. The recession is nothing new. It prevailed under Clinton's magically profitable administration. There were tiers within the middle class and I was part of them all. Being lower and mid-middle class was more of a struggle than being poor because you did not qualify for any assistance and the prevailing attitude was "shame on you for asking." To discuss it only opened the door for arguments about how worse off the third world nations were so STFU about being middle-class-poor. Get a better job or a second job and stop being a little bitch. Some people I debated this with were not as polite as I just described. Especially over the Internet where relative anonymity made people braver and down right viscous.
But now, as I predicted many times before, the wealthy have developed strongholds with their bottomless lobby coiffeurs and legal opinions about corporate personhood and shareholder rights. Now people are feeling the boot heel of the wealthy as our elected representatives discuss ending all entitlements and eliminating taxes. But read the fine print. They don't mean local taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes or the miscellaneous fees that the 99 per cent of Americans will continue to pay. You can also forget about Medicare and Social Security being part of your retirement as well. This is not because the money will run out as the media pundits and talking heads have been claiming for years. This is because they will do everything in their power to destroy it. And they have been attacking it like a bunch of pygmies shooting darts at an elephant. Even so called religious leaders like Pat (please God, send him a massive coronary) Robertson have been calling for the end of entitlement programs.
Isn't Pat Robertson supposed to be a Christian? Isn't he supposed to be charitable, compassionate, and a protectorate of the poor? Entitlement programs, although flawed thanks to bureaucracy, are in place to at least attempt a level of assistance for the needy, the elderly, and the disabled. All of whom will ultimately suffer the most by eliminating entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. I know one way to fund those allegedly failing programs...ending all of our military activities in the Middle East and rechanneling those billions of dollars back into entitlements and education.
But I digressed here. My point is about the growing angry mob that is fed up with the bourgeoisie supremacy of faceless shareholders and their impersonal corporate entities. Why are the needs of a company and wealthy investors more important than the needs of human beings? People have been starving in the streets of America for decades and now entire families are being forced into poverty by falling/stagnate wages, fewer opportunities, and the ever rising cost of all goods.
We are right back to choosing between one necessity over another, or robbing Peter to pay Paul. And in Massachusetts we are forced to buy health insurance: so that commodity is more important than food, clothing, and shelter. You can thank Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and Scott Brown for that. Plus, instead of basing universal health care on a hybrid of the Canadian model and the existing Medicare program, Congress and the Senate chose to model it after the Romney health care that force citizens to buy a commodity. We can also thank the Brown Shirts (aka the Tea Party) for being the muscle at all of those town hall meetings. I want to know how that is working out for those morons.
Again, I digress. We are on the edge of that dangerous chasm of revolution. I am all for taking down the power structures that allow the wealthy to manipulate our legislators. I am all for kicking out every elected representative, every appointed official and bringing in new blood: blue collar blood: non-elitist blood. But what about our Constitution? The thing that makes our country great is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents forge the freedoms that our servicemen and women put their lives on the line to protect. What guarantees do we have that those will remain the law of the land if the 99 per cent revolts? There are no guarantees. Germany was a democracy in crisis when the Brown Shirts and the Nazi party took over. America is a democratic republic in crisis. We must be careful about what we wish for in these fragile times. We can discuss and even vote for term limits, earning caps, fair taxation and so on. Yet, the ones who control legislation and the masters of government will never allow these things to happen no matter what the people vote on.
Those who gain power will cling to it until death.
This makes revolution inevitable.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Defining Pornography
Most people would agree that pornography should be regulated; yet there is no consensus on what constitutes obscenity. In her essay “Pornography” Margaret Atwoood proposes the regulation of violent erotic depictions, specifically vicious portrayals of rape, torture, sexual mutilations, and death. Numerous times in her piece Atwood affirmed that a clear definition of hardcore pornography must be determined. A wide variety of sensibilities exist within American culture with differing ideas of what is obscene. This essay will examine the importance of defining pornography in a free society and offer a counter solution to the Supreme Court definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled, material is considered obscene based on, “(a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” (“Miller v. California.”). According to this definition, every television show and commercial is obscene. Further to the point, discrepancies arise when determining who an average person is and what the community standards are. Leaving arbitrary regulations to civic leaders, charismatics, moneyed persons, or religious groups will always lead to tyranny. Although our society is based on democratic principles, America is a republic. Allowing majority rule to apply to community standards will trample individuality and is an affront to the Constitutional right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “As democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning” (Chenoweth). Depending on individual points of view, values are perceived according to social norms, spiritual beliefs, or market analysis. Concurring to the latter, obscenity is in high demand.
Still, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Most mothers and fathers do not want to expose their children to obscenity, even if said parents regularly view pornography, rated R movies, or listen to contemporary comedians. Conversely, each of us has equal rights to live without hostility towards our predilections, given that no harm is brought to another person. Yet, even within our legal system the definition of harm is subjective. Am I harming my neighbor if I sunbathe on my property in the nude? Several factors dictate the response: is my neighbor agreeable to my body, am I assuming a level of privacy behind a fence or wall, are my behaviors being interpreted as lewd? In California or Florida my actions may be considered eccentric and legally protected. In Kansas I will probably be arrested. One person’s lewd is another’s lifestyle.
Modern controversy erupted over the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show. Families traditionally gathered to watch this major sporting event. Therefore many children were viewing a dance routine between Jackson and Justin Timberlake at that time. The irony with Jackson’s exhibition was that her semi-nude nipple was considered by many to be obscene during a sporting event that, in my opinion, glamorizes violence. The immediate reactive firestorm that followed ushered in the increased fines for indecent and obscene broadcasts to “$500,000 for each violation” (Upton, 2004). The escalation in penalties and the threat of license revocation forced Clear Channel Radio to drop several of the simulcasts of Howard Stern’s radio show. Stern chose to move his act to satellite radio. Although many of his fans bought the equipment and pay for the service, true freedom of choice has been taken away from people who cannot afford the cost. There are senators and congress-people that still want to regulate indecency on pay services. Nevertheless, we cannot allow the policing of personal choice in the guise of combating obscenity.
The obscenity statute “assumes a degree of homogeneity which can no longer be assumed, and probably couldn’t ever be assumed, and most certainly not after the sixties and seventies” (Anthony and Petley 50-58). I dye my hair blue and I am told at formal events that my appearance is disrespectful. “According to who?” I ask. We are a divergent society. The figurative melting pot of cultures is embodied in our creed: “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me” (Lazarus). These words that are inscribed at the base of the statue of liberty would fall hollow on the ears of any pilgrim if their moral standards were not equally recognized. Since every level of the American community contains so many views we must be careful to protect individual ideals while honoring majority principles. The vagueness of the obscenity definition is purposeful. Community attitudes change over time. The provocative music videos currently shown on MTV would have caused pandemonium in the 1950s. Likewise, the hopelessly schlocky monster movies of that era would have been deemed satanic during the Puritanical Salem Witch Trials. Consequently, any characterization must be fluid. Even so, there is too much possibility of conjecture as the Supreme Court decision stands.
Is it art or is it pornography? This is a simple question, but one that begs us to ask, “does it truly matter?” I have extensive Japanese style tattoos. To further my search for designs I purchased a book of prints by Hokusai. Amongst the beautifully detailed work I found an 1814 painting titled “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses.” The image portrays a large octopus performing cunnilingus on a young woman while a smaller one kisses her. Is it art or pornography and does it matter? The detail is riveting even if the subject matter is rather absurd. A fine line exists between personal freedom and the majority contention against indecency. As a parent, I do not allow my children to view the book of Hokusai paintings. However, I am considering having the “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses” image tattooed on my thigh. Since I only wear shorts that go to my knees I do not have the immediate possibility of offending others. Nevertheless, do I have the right to present this image on my own body? Will I possibly run the risk of arrest if I go swimming in a hotel pool while visiting friends in the Mid-West? Could my gym ban me from certain activities that push my shorts up and display the offending tattoo?
Censorship exists everywhere. Because of our diverse tastes and standards there will always be contention between what is acceptable and what goes too far. “I had more than a suspicion that Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Margaret Laurence’s The Diviners, and indeed most books by most serious modern authors would have ended up as confetti” (Atwood 281-82). Further to the point, there are people who even consider tattoos sinful. In the tiny universes of human interaction, anyone choosing to express their individuality can expect to be treated with casual disdain, mockery and in extreme cases, violence. “The absence of empathy, the conviction that our adversaries are weird and entirely unlike us (and correspondingly, that people who seem weird are our enemies), is also at the heart of today’s obscenity policies” (Koppelman 70). The hostilities expressed to non-conformism forces people to hide who they are and is an affront to personal freedom.
Pornography affects people differently. The majority of people can view an advertisement for Kohl’s and perhaps be moved to purchase clothing. Yet, there are individuals who become aroused at the models depending on his or her particular fetish. Some persons will masturbate, while others simply take a cold shower. Are we supposed to ban advertisements because of the potential for sexual arousal? The answer is no because sexuality is a human trait. All people have desires and fetishes.
What the censor-crazed zealots fail to realize is that if we strip society down and become a sterile environment devoid of any suggestive imagery, discussions, and actions, humans will still have their imaginations. Sexual desire is a product of our minds. Pornography exists because we, as a species, love sex. Even the Bible is rampant with carnal episodes to stoke the fires of ingenuity.
Child pornography is strictly banned universally. The majority of people are appalled by it. Several laws exist to prosecute the proliferation of these materials and the adults who manipulate children into performing in them. I propose that we can reach a equally general agreement regarding violent sexual content. The porn industry already classifies pornography as softcore, hardcore, and extreme. Softcore pornography usually includes full and partial nudity, simulated sex such as the content of a rated R movie, and classic erotica. Playboy magazine is an example of softcore pornography. Hardcore pornography includes graphic depictions of sex in as many varieties as the imagination can perceive as well as light bondage. Typical hardcore pornography includes movies such as Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas as well as websites like NaughtyAmerica.com Extreme pornography includes intense bondage, sexual mutilation, depictions of rape, necrophilia, urolagnia, vorarephilia, coprophilia, emetophilia, algolagnia, dacryphilia, necrozoophilia, zoophilia, zoosadism, and even murder.
The regulation of extreme pornography in which actual and perceived victims exist must be enacted. Depictions of sexual violence can desensitize a viewer and have the effect of normalizing the represented behavior. I realize the hypocrisy of this statement, given the argument presented in this essay. However, softcore and hardcore pornography are considered contractual activities between consenting adults. Contrarily, extreme pornography has victims. In addition, it idealizes violence and cruelty as well as homicidal tendencies. Any variety of sexuality is fine and can be a healthy release of life’s stress factors as long as no humans or animals are harmed. By simply categorizing pornography as soft, hard and extreme we can separate the distasteful from the harmful.
The labeling of pornographic degrees should involve the people it directly affects. Expert sexologists, psychologists, religious leaders, and senators should all design the legislation by committee. Allowing only a one-sided myopic view always leads to tyranny, thus a balance must be struck. Although I cannot say whether any extreme pornography should be outlawed, the harmful effects on viewers must be considered; warnings should accompany all material. Stiffer penalties should be executed on individuals who victimize others as a result of viewing extreme pornography, while ensuring lesser forms of BDSM between consenting adults are never penalized. Provided major laws concerning death and destruction are observed, most liaisons between individuals of legal age should be afforded a latitude of respect and privacy. Even so, fetishes exist that can lead an individual into danger.
The term consenting adults does have its share of victims after all.
In conclusion, I propose that we lessen the censorship of softcore and hardcore pornography as well as obscenity. We should have a healthy attitude towards the human body and sexuality. I can see the merits of making sure that children under the age of 18 cannot view hardcore pornography. However, let the adults choose for themselves what is acceptable entertainment. I also recommend that we begin regulating and prosecuting the proliferation of extreme pornography. Since we all have the right to exist without the fear of victimization we must safeguard this liberty by not condoning intentional cruelty for sexual gratification.
Works Cited
Chenoweth, Eric. “Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles.” Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom Web. 27 Jun 2011..
Julius, Anthony, and Julian Petley. "Crimes of transgression." Index on Censorship 38.1 (2009): 56. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Koppelman, Andrew. "Reading Lolita at Guantánamo." Dissent (00123846) 53.2 (2006): 64-71. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Lazarus, Emma. "The New Colossus." Poets.org. The Academy of American Poets, 1883. Web. 27 Jun 2011..
Marantz Henig, Robin. "The Psychology of Bliss." New York Times (2010): 280. Web. 1 Jul 2011..
"Miller v. California." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999) (1999): N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 June 2011.
Upton, Fred. 108th Congress, (2004). Broadcast decency enforcement act of 2004 (H.R.3717). Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03717:@@@D&summ2=m&
The Supreme Court ruled, material is considered obscene based on, “(a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” (“Miller v. California.”). According to this definition, every television show and commercial is obscene. Further to the point, discrepancies arise when determining who an average person is and what the community standards are. Leaving arbitrary regulations to civic leaders, charismatics, moneyed persons, or religious groups will always lead to tyranny. Although our society is based on democratic principles, America is a republic. Allowing majority rule to apply to community standards will trample individuality and is an affront to the Constitutional right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “As democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning” (Chenoweth). Depending on individual points of view, values are perceived according to social norms, spiritual beliefs, or market analysis. Concurring to the latter, obscenity is in high demand.
Still, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Most mothers and fathers do not want to expose their children to obscenity, even if said parents regularly view pornography, rated R movies, or listen to contemporary comedians. Conversely, each of us has equal rights to live without hostility towards our predilections, given that no harm is brought to another person. Yet, even within our legal system the definition of harm is subjective. Am I harming my neighbor if I sunbathe on my property in the nude? Several factors dictate the response: is my neighbor agreeable to my body, am I assuming a level of privacy behind a fence or wall, are my behaviors being interpreted as lewd? In California or Florida my actions may be considered eccentric and legally protected. In Kansas I will probably be arrested. One person’s lewd is another’s lifestyle.
Modern controversy erupted over the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show. Families traditionally gathered to watch this major sporting event. Therefore many children were viewing a dance routine between Jackson and Justin Timberlake at that time. The irony with Jackson’s exhibition was that her semi-nude nipple was considered by many to be obscene during a sporting event that, in my opinion, glamorizes violence. The immediate reactive firestorm that followed ushered in the increased fines for indecent and obscene broadcasts to “$500,000 for each violation” (Upton, 2004). The escalation in penalties and the threat of license revocation forced Clear Channel Radio to drop several of the simulcasts of Howard Stern’s radio show. Stern chose to move his act to satellite radio. Although many of his fans bought the equipment and pay for the service, true freedom of choice has been taken away from people who cannot afford the cost. There are senators and congress-people that still want to regulate indecency on pay services. Nevertheless, we cannot allow the policing of personal choice in the guise of combating obscenity.
The obscenity statute “assumes a degree of homogeneity which can no longer be assumed, and probably couldn’t ever be assumed, and most certainly not after the sixties and seventies” (Anthony and Petley 50-58). I dye my hair blue and I am told at formal events that my appearance is disrespectful. “According to who?” I ask. We are a divergent society. The figurative melting pot of cultures is embodied in our creed: “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me” (Lazarus). These words that are inscribed at the base of the statue of liberty would fall hollow on the ears of any pilgrim if their moral standards were not equally recognized. Since every level of the American community contains so many views we must be careful to protect individual ideals while honoring majority principles. The vagueness of the obscenity definition is purposeful. Community attitudes change over time. The provocative music videos currently shown on MTV would have caused pandemonium in the 1950s. Likewise, the hopelessly schlocky monster movies of that era would have been deemed satanic during the Puritanical Salem Witch Trials. Consequently, any characterization must be fluid. Even so, there is too much possibility of conjecture as the Supreme Court decision stands.
Is it art or is it pornography? This is a simple question, but one that begs us to ask, “does it truly matter?” I have extensive Japanese style tattoos. To further my search for designs I purchased a book of prints by Hokusai. Amongst the beautifully detailed work I found an 1814 painting titled “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses.” The image portrays a large octopus performing cunnilingus on a young woman while a smaller one kisses her. Is it art or pornography and does it matter? The detail is riveting even if the subject matter is rather absurd. A fine line exists between personal freedom and the majority contention against indecency. As a parent, I do not allow my children to view the book of Hokusai paintings. However, I am considering having the “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses” image tattooed on my thigh. Since I only wear shorts that go to my knees I do not have the immediate possibility of offending others. Nevertheless, do I have the right to present this image on my own body? Will I possibly run the risk of arrest if I go swimming in a hotel pool while visiting friends in the Mid-West? Could my gym ban me from certain activities that push my shorts up and display the offending tattoo?
Censorship exists everywhere. Because of our diverse tastes and standards there will always be contention between what is acceptable and what goes too far. “I had more than a suspicion that Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Margaret Laurence’s The Diviners, and indeed most books by most serious modern authors would have ended up as confetti” (Atwood 281-82). Further to the point, there are people who even consider tattoos sinful. In the tiny universes of human interaction, anyone choosing to express their individuality can expect to be treated with casual disdain, mockery and in extreme cases, violence. “The absence of empathy, the conviction that our adversaries are weird and entirely unlike us (and correspondingly, that people who seem weird are our enemies), is also at the heart of today’s obscenity policies” (Koppelman 70). The hostilities expressed to non-conformism forces people to hide who they are and is an affront to personal freedom.
Pornography affects people differently. The majority of people can view an advertisement for Kohl’s and perhaps be moved to purchase clothing. Yet, there are individuals who become aroused at the models depending on his or her particular fetish. Some persons will masturbate, while others simply take a cold shower. Are we supposed to ban advertisements because of the potential for sexual arousal? The answer is no because sexuality is a human trait. All people have desires and fetishes.
“Animals do not have fetishes or need to act out sexual scripts. These are distinctively human activities. They reveal the creative potential of the human mind. For that reason, they have a dignity of their own. If people are entitled to respect, then their sexual desires are entitled to respect. People live better lives if they have some space in which those desires are not judged. The impulse to crush what is strange and disgusting is as dangerous here as it is in Iran” (Koppelman 71).
What the censor-crazed zealots fail to realize is that if we strip society down and become a sterile environment devoid of any suggestive imagery, discussions, and actions, humans will still have their imaginations. Sexual desire is a product of our minds. Pornography exists because we, as a species, love sex. Even the Bible is rampant with carnal episodes to stoke the fires of ingenuity.
Child pornography is strictly banned universally. The majority of people are appalled by it. Several laws exist to prosecute the proliferation of these materials and the adults who manipulate children into performing in them. I propose that we can reach a equally general agreement regarding violent sexual content. The porn industry already classifies pornography as softcore, hardcore, and extreme. Softcore pornography usually includes full and partial nudity, simulated sex such as the content of a rated R movie, and classic erotica. Playboy magazine is an example of softcore pornography. Hardcore pornography includes graphic depictions of sex in as many varieties as the imagination can perceive as well as light bondage. Typical hardcore pornography includes movies such as Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas as well as websites like NaughtyAmerica.com Extreme pornography includes intense bondage, sexual mutilation, depictions of rape, necrophilia, urolagnia, vorarephilia, coprophilia, emetophilia, algolagnia, dacryphilia, necrozoophilia, zoophilia, zoosadism, and even murder.
The regulation of extreme pornography in which actual and perceived victims exist must be enacted. Depictions of sexual violence can desensitize a viewer and have the effect of normalizing the represented behavior. I realize the hypocrisy of this statement, given the argument presented in this essay. However, softcore and hardcore pornography are considered contractual activities between consenting adults. Contrarily, extreme pornography has victims. In addition, it idealizes violence and cruelty as well as homicidal tendencies. Any variety of sexuality is fine and can be a healthy release of life’s stress factors as long as no humans or animals are harmed. By simply categorizing pornography as soft, hard and extreme we can separate the distasteful from the harmful.
The labeling of pornographic degrees should involve the people it directly affects. Expert sexologists, psychologists, religious leaders, and senators should all design the legislation by committee. Allowing only a one-sided myopic view always leads to tyranny, thus a balance must be struck. Although I cannot say whether any extreme pornography should be outlawed, the harmful effects on viewers must be considered; warnings should accompany all material. Stiffer penalties should be executed on individuals who victimize others as a result of viewing extreme pornography, while ensuring lesser forms of BDSM between consenting adults are never penalized. Provided major laws concerning death and destruction are observed, most liaisons between individuals of legal age should be afforded a latitude of respect and privacy. Even so, fetishes exist that can lead an individual into danger.
“In 2003, a German computer expert named Armin Meiwes advertised online for someone to kill and then eat. Incredibly, 200 people replied, and Meiwes chose a man named Bernd Brandes. One night, in Meiwes's farmhouse, Brandes took some sleeping pills and drank some schnapps and was still awake when Meiwes cut off his penis, fried it in olive oil and offered him some to eat. Brandes then retreated to the bathtub, bleeding profusely. Meiwes stabbed him in the neck, chopped him up and stored him in the freezer. Over the next several weeks, he defrosted and sauteed 44 pounds of Brandes, eating him by candlelight with his best cutlery.” (Marantz Henig 280).
The term consenting adults does have its share of victims after all.
In conclusion, I propose that we lessen the censorship of softcore and hardcore pornography as well as obscenity. We should have a healthy attitude towards the human body and sexuality. I can see the merits of making sure that children under the age of 18 cannot view hardcore pornography. However, let the adults choose for themselves what is acceptable entertainment. I also recommend that we begin regulating and prosecuting the proliferation of extreme pornography. Since we all have the right to exist without the fear of victimization we must safeguard this liberty by not condoning intentional cruelty for sexual gratification.
Works Cited
Chenoweth, Eric. “Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles.” Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom Web. 27 Jun 2011.
Julius, Anthony, and Julian Petley. "Crimes of transgression." Index on Censorship 38.1 (2009): 56. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Koppelman, Andrew. "Reading Lolita at Guantánamo." Dissent (00123846) 53.2 (2006): 64-71. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Lazarus, Emma. "The New Colossus." Poets.org. The Academy of American Poets, 1883. Web. 27 Jun 2011.
Marantz Henig, Robin. "The Psychology of Bliss." New York Times (2010): 280. Web. 1 Jul 2011.
"Miller v. California." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999) (1999): N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 June 2011.
Upton, Fred. 108th Congress, (2004). Broadcast decency enforcement act of 2004 (H.R.3717). Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03717:@@@D&summ2=m&
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Disparities Between Conservatism and Liberalism
The American Political landscape is replete with interwoven factions and parties that define the civilian conscious. The polar opposites on this spectrum are conservatism and Liberalism. In popular media such as television, news, and commentary, conservatism is prevalent amongst a seemingly larger segment of society while liberalism is scorned vehemently. Conservatism is portrayed as strong and viable while liberalism is described as weak and even traitorous. Superficially conservatism appears superior but liberalism requires resilience, character, and intellectual prowess. This paper will demonstrate the similarities between the two creeds and explain why liberalism is the nobler path. The focus of this essay is on conservatism and liberalism in the current American political understanding.
There are many dogmas that weave the tapestry of the American political landscape. In the years I have spent studying politics I have realized that most citizens are centrist even when they adamantly state support for a specific camp. Many people want the same things such as security, liberty, justice, and economic opportunities. The options for achieving said goals and the role that government plays in those methods is where the political factions differ or agree. One may ask where conservatism and liberalism stand on these simplified issues. The elements that define these philosophies will immediately answer that question.
Liberalism can be generalized as an ideology that “considers individuals the seat of moral value and each individual as of equal worth. Hence, the individual should be free to choose his or her own ends in life. Liberalism may be morally neutral in regard to the ends people choose for themselves, but it is not morally neutral in its view that such individual choice is desirable and must be safeguarded from unwarranted interference from the state.” (Hall). However, American liberalism also includes elements of socialism and a creed of purpose for the common good. The slogan “Support the Troops,” although arguably a rally cry for rationalizing war efforts has socialist underpinnings. We support the troops because they are our families, neighbors and friends who are making the ultimate sacrifice. Yet, their martyrdom is for a liberal cause: defense of freedom and democracy for the common good.
Conservatism “harks back to the medieval ideal of the close-knit local community, a stable social hierarchy with rank ascribed at birth rather than achieved, dominated by aristocratic paternalism towards the poor, and a network of reciprocal rights and obligations linking benevolent master and deferential servant” (“conservatism”). The modern conservative movement focuses on class distinction, favoring the rule of corporate leaders and wealthy investors. The rights of the poor and middle classes are based on the benevolence of the business community to bless individuals with a job that does not guarantee retirement or livable wages. In addition, conservatives favor “laissezfaire [sic] economics, unregulated capitalism, and minimal state intervention in economic affairs. Whereas organic conservatism emphasizes ‘one nation’, libertarians endorse the individualism of autonomous individuals following their own self-interest, usually on the grounds of individual freedom, social justice, and (long-term) collective welfare.” (“conservatism”). These ideals are usually interpreted politically into protectionist platforms for corporate autocracy and diminished individual rights on the grounds of morality and decency.
Both conservatism and Liberalism stress strong security policies, personal freedom, justice for wrongdoing, and greater economic opportunities. Americans from every faction on the political spectrum generally agree with these goals. Nevertheless, disparities exist amongst these groups concerning how to achieve them, who the beneficiaries should be, and the definition of the terms. Conservatism supports a strong security policy to ensure that America’s preeminence is never jeopardized. The philosophy stresses economic primacy and hostility towards international constrictions. Consequently, conservative legislators push bills that fund military activities and law enforcement efforts. They also pass laws that violate civil liberties, such as the Patriot Act. The concern for conservative legislators regarding personal freedom is usually focused on corporate personhood. In a twist of irony, the rights of the individual are steadily diminished and rendered ineffectual while conservative edicts strengthen the privileges of corporate personhood.
Liberalism supports security with a strong emphasis on human and civil rights. The viewpoint is that security can be achieved without violating the entitlements of individuals. Liberal legislators push to decrease military spending and regulate the private security firms that are employed by business entities. These representatives have been known to pass exploitive bills during times of crisis and even reinstate expiring laws, such as the Patriot Act.
Both conservatism and liberalism support justice but differ on policies such as the death penalty, tort laws, and decriminalization of marijuana. The two dogmas also strive to maintain a viable economy with many job opportunities. Still, conservative representatives seek to remove restrictions like minimum wage, regulatory constraints, and taxes. The underlying principles follow a set of broad tracks. Conservatism is aligned with private industry, economic freedom, American supremacy, traditional values, and Judeo-Christian morals. These can be interpreted as noble if you are upper-middle class or wealthy and American. Alternately, these tenets can be construed as hegemonic and tyrannical if you happen to be anyone else. Liberalism concerns itself with the individual, civil freedom, equality, religious pluralism, and a balance between private industry and worker rights. These ideals have been demonized as socialist agendas that destroy the fabric of society and undermine the American Dream of entrepreneurism.
Conservatism condemns the poor as lazy and liberalism as perpetuating the nanny state. However, the amount spent on subsidies to industries that do not need them far outweighs the cost of public education, welfare, and Medicare. Liberalism strives to meet the needs of the people because America is a society. We are not individuals who happen to exist next to each other. This is a nation and we have a responsibility to every citizen. Hypothetically, if we are to no longer be concerned for the well being of our neighbors then we must also remove the laws that shield us from anarchy.
Yet, this is a nation of laws because we cannot exist without the mutual cooperation of government, private industry and citizen. Businesses cannot survive without workers and consumers, just as these same people need jobs in order to purchase goods. The purpose for liberalism is to ensure a balance between these two players. Since corporations are only concerned with maximizing profits, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” (Lincoln), must regulate them. Historically, private industry has proven that the well being of workers and consumers is not a priority. Conservatism seeks to deregulate pollution standards to allow private industry to freely contaminate the air, water and soil. Liberalism seeks to place limits and charge an agency with ensuring that the standards are met.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the battle lines between conservatism and liberalism. The need for this document was a consequence of the fascist activities during World War II, specifically the war crimes of the Nazi regime. The inception of the Declaration was conceived when “the first Human Rights Commission was asked to identify which rights were shared by all human beings” (Ishay 14). While conservatism chastises anyone who invokes these rights, liberalism stands firmly to demand them. Article 23 pronounces that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable [sic] conditions of work and to protection against unemployment…without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work… has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection…right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” (“United Nations”). Although these are reasonable rights that should be afforded to all people, conservatism would have us believe that such standards would infringe upon the rights of private industry under the guise of corporate personhood.
Article 25 declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (“United Nations”). The news is replete with pundits and candidates discussing the elimination of Medicare. These same people want to defund the health care reform under President Barack Obama. They have forgotten the social contract between citizens and private industry.
Our economy is in poor condition. Conservatism uses this as an excuse to undermine the basic rights of the individual. We cannot afford universal health care, yet we can justify pouring billions into the military for two failed wars that seem to have no end. The Supreme Court grants more corporate personhood rights each year, setting precedents and passing binding judgments. Liberalism requires fortitude and conviction. As every citizen struggles to weather this economic crisis, liberalism must withstand the onslaught of attacks to civil liberties. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks our nation was under siege from Conservatism as unthinkable policies were pushed through as a knee-jerk reaction. We now face a similar situation. Liberalism buckled in 2001. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. Conservatism is an easier path for anyone willing to give up liberty for basic comfort. Liberalism is a harder path to follow, but it is a noble journey for the common good.
Works Cited
“conservatism” A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Northeastern Univ. School of Law. n. pag. 12 June 2011
Hall, John A. "Liberalism." The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Northeastern Univ. School of Law. n. pag. 12 June 2011
Ishay, Micheline. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 60: A Bridge to Which Future?." Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 9.1/2 (2010): 14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 July 2011.
Lincoln, Abraham. “Abraham Lincoln.” The White House. Office of the President of the United States, n.d. Web. n. pag. 13 Jun 2011..
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. The United Nations, n.d. Web. n. pag. 13 Jun 2011..
There are many dogmas that weave the tapestry of the American political landscape. In the years I have spent studying politics I have realized that most citizens are centrist even when they adamantly state support for a specific camp. Many people want the same things such as security, liberty, justice, and economic opportunities. The options for achieving said goals and the role that government plays in those methods is where the political factions differ or agree. One may ask where conservatism and liberalism stand on these simplified issues. The elements that define these philosophies will immediately answer that question.
Liberalism can be generalized as an ideology that “considers individuals the seat of moral value and each individual as of equal worth. Hence, the individual should be free to choose his or her own ends in life. Liberalism may be morally neutral in regard to the ends people choose for themselves, but it is not morally neutral in its view that such individual choice is desirable and must be safeguarded from unwarranted interference from the state.” (Hall). However, American liberalism also includes elements of socialism and a creed of purpose for the common good. The slogan “Support the Troops,” although arguably a rally cry for rationalizing war efforts has socialist underpinnings. We support the troops because they are our families, neighbors and friends who are making the ultimate sacrifice. Yet, their martyrdom is for a liberal cause: defense of freedom and democracy for the common good.
Conservatism “harks back to the medieval ideal of the close-knit local community, a stable social hierarchy with rank ascribed at birth rather than achieved, dominated by aristocratic paternalism towards the poor, and a network of reciprocal rights and obligations linking benevolent master and deferential servant” (“conservatism”). The modern conservative movement focuses on class distinction, favoring the rule of corporate leaders and wealthy investors. The rights of the poor and middle classes are based on the benevolence of the business community to bless individuals with a job that does not guarantee retirement or livable wages. In addition, conservatives favor “laissezfaire [sic] economics, unregulated capitalism, and minimal state intervention in economic affairs. Whereas organic conservatism emphasizes ‘one nation’, libertarians endorse the individualism of autonomous individuals following their own self-interest, usually on the grounds of individual freedom, social justice, and (long-term) collective welfare.” (“conservatism”). These ideals are usually interpreted politically into protectionist platforms for corporate autocracy and diminished individual rights on the grounds of morality and decency.
Both conservatism and Liberalism stress strong security policies, personal freedom, justice for wrongdoing, and greater economic opportunities. Americans from every faction on the political spectrum generally agree with these goals. Nevertheless, disparities exist amongst these groups concerning how to achieve them, who the beneficiaries should be, and the definition of the terms. Conservatism supports a strong security policy to ensure that America’s preeminence is never jeopardized. The philosophy stresses economic primacy and hostility towards international constrictions. Consequently, conservative legislators push bills that fund military activities and law enforcement efforts. They also pass laws that violate civil liberties, such as the Patriot Act. The concern for conservative legislators regarding personal freedom is usually focused on corporate personhood. In a twist of irony, the rights of the individual are steadily diminished and rendered ineffectual while conservative edicts strengthen the privileges of corporate personhood.
Liberalism supports security with a strong emphasis on human and civil rights. The viewpoint is that security can be achieved without violating the entitlements of individuals. Liberal legislators push to decrease military spending and regulate the private security firms that are employed by business entities. These representatives have been known to pass exploitive bills during times of crisis and even reinstate expiring laws, such as the Patriot Act.
Both conservatism and liberalism support justice but differ on policies such as the death penalty, tort laws, and decriminalization of marijuana. The two dogmas also strive to maintain a viable economy with many job opportunities. Still, conservative representatives seek to remove restrictions like minimum wage, regulatory constraints, and taxes. The underlying principles follow a set of broad tracks. Conservatism is aligned with private industry, economic freedom, American supremacy, traditional values, and Judeo-Christian morals. These can be interpreted as noble if you are upper-middle class or wealthy and American. Alternately, these tenets can be construed as hegemonic and tyrannical if you happen to be anyone else. Liberalism concerns itself with the individual, civil freedom, equality, religious pluralism, and a balance between private industry and worker rights. These ideals have been demonized as socialist agendas that destroy the fabric of society and undermine the American Dream of entrepreneurism.
Conservatism condemns the poor as lazy and liberalism as perpetuating the nanny state. However, the amount spent on subsidies to industries that do not need them far outweighs the cost of public education, welfare, and Medicare. Liberalism strives to meet the needs of the people because America is a society. We are not individuals who happen to exist next to each other. This is a nation and we have a responsibility to every citizen. Hypothetically, if we are to no longer be concerned for the well being of our neighbors then we must also remove the laws that shield us from anarchy.
Yet, this is a nation of laws because we cannot exist without the mutual cooperation of government, private industry and citizen. Businesses cannot survive without workers and consumers, just as these same people need jobs in order to purchase goods. The purpose for liberalism is to ensure a balance between these two players. Since corporations are only concerned with maximizing profits, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” (Lincoln), must regulate them. Historically, private industry has proven that the well being of workers and consumers is not a priority. Conservatism seeks to deregulate pollution standards to allow private industry to freely contaminate the air, water and soil. Liberalism seeks to place limits and charge an agency with ensuring that the standards are met.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the battle lines between conservatism and liberalism. The need for this document was a consequence of the fascist activities during World War II, specifically the war crimes of the Nazi regime. The inception of the Declaration was conceived when “the first Human Rights Commission was asked to identify which rights were shared by all human beings” (Ishay 14). While conservatism chastises anyone who invokes these rights, liberalism stands firmly to demand them. Article 23 pronounces that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable [sic] conditions of work and to protection against unemployment…without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work… has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection…right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” (“United Nations”). Although these are reasonable rights that should be afforded to all people, conservatism would have us believe that such standards would infringe upon the rights of private industry under the guise of corporate personhood.
Article 25 declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (“United Nations”). The news is replete with pundits and candidates discussing the elimination of Medicare. These same people want to defund the health care reform under President Barack Obama. They have forgotten the social contract between citizens and private industry.
Our economy is in poor condition. Conservatism uses this as an excuse to undermine the basic rights of the individual. We cannot afford universal health care, yet we can justify pouring billions into the military for two failed wars that seem to have no end. The Supreme Court grants more corporate personhood rights each year, setting precedents and passing binding judgments. Liberalism requires fortitude and conviction. As every citizen struggles to weather this economic crisis, liberalism must withstand the onslaught of attacks to civil liberties. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks our nation was under siege from Conservatism as unthinkable policies were pushed through as a knee-jerk reaction. We now face a similar situation. Liberalism buckled in 2001. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. Conservatism is an easier path for anyone willing to give up liberty for basic comfort. Liberalism is a harder path to follow, but it is a noble journey for the common good.
Works Cited
“conservatism” A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Northeastern Univ. School of Law. n. pag. 12 June 2011
Hall, John A. "Liberalism." The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Northeastern Univ. School of Law. n. pag. 12 June 2011
Ishay, Micheline. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 60: A Bridge to Which Future?." Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 9.1/2 (2010): 14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 July 2011.
Lincoln, Abraham. “Abraham Lincoln.” The White House. Office of the President of the United States, n.d. Web. n. pag. 13 Jun 2011.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. The United Nations, n.d. Web. n. pag. 13 Jun 2011.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Enough With Insurance Companies Already
This is in response to the recent Boston Globe article about RomneyCare: ‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked. Who exactly did Brian Mooney talk to when he researched this article? RomneyCare is the worst thing to happen to Massachusetts since Blue Cross bought the state.
You want the inside word? Romneycare is great if you are Blue Cross. It is not so great if you happen to be unemployed or underemployed and especially if you are middle class. I am head of household for a family of four. My wife is not working. She has zero income. My only income is my unemployment. I apparently earn too much if you can believe that. At what point do I qualify for MassHealth or Obamacare? According to RomneyCare I am only allowed to use the insurance granted to me through unemployment, which is Blue Cross.
Mitt Romney saw a problem with so many Massachusetts residents unable to afford insurance. His solution was to force us to buy Blue Cross (or one of the other companies). If you cannot afford it, that is too bad. The state will give you a hefty surcharge in your tax refund if you do not pay for insurance. For the majority of us, it is buy insurance or pay rent and eat. What would Romney do about the homeless situation? Force the homeless to buy boxes?
Seriously, it is time to return to a single payer plan. Look at the profits that Blue Cross claimed for last year: $222 million (Blue Cross Earnings). And somehow Blue Cross is reported as a non-profit company. What a joke. Their CEOs make more in a year than I have made as a database programmer for ten years.
That is only one company. Add Harvard Vanguard, Tufts and all the other companies and you are looking at a surplus for universal healthcare. I say, enough with these middlemen. Give everyone Medicare. These insurance carriers are driving costs up with their forced administrative fees. I worked for Blue Cross and know how they operate. 97% of all claims are automatically rejected. Yes, they are reviewed and yes, the reviewers are trained to reject them arbitrarily for any reason they can find. This forces the service providers to hire administrative staff to fight with Blue Cross to get paid for services. It is enough already! Brian Mooney is clearly sucking the teat of the insurance industry. Honestly, who paid him to write this, Blue Cross, Mitt Romney or both?
I have been unemployed for 6 months and MassHealth has rejected me for a long list of reasons (I earn too much, I need more documentation, I have to use the unemployment first, etc.). Shame on Mitt Romney and shame on the conservatives who want to privatize everything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that privatization drives up costs and drives out consumers. The state comes in to force the populace to consume a commodity that is less necessary than food, shelter, clothing and even education. The solution is simple. It will take a complete removal of insurance lobbies from the public sector. Yes, companies like Blue Cross and Tufts will be destroyed. But why are we allowing them to profit from the misery of others? Why should we allow government agencies to force citizens to buy a commodity that they do not need?
Why indeed.
You want the inside word? Romneycare is great if you are Blue Cross. It is not so great if you happen to be unemployed or underemployed and especially if you are middle class. I am head of household for a family of four. My wife is not working. She has zero income. My only income is my unemployment. I apparently earn too much if you can believe that. At what point do I qualify for MassHealth or Obamacare? According to RomneyCare I am only allowed to use the insurance granted to me through unemployment, which is Blue Cross.
Mitt Romney saw a problem with so many Massachusetts residents unable to afford insurance. His solution was to force us to buy Blue Cross (or one of the other companies). If you cannot afford it, that is too bad. The state will give you a hefty surcharge in your tax refund if you do not pay for insurance. For the majority of us, it is buy insurance or pay rent and eat. What would Romney do about the homeless situation? Force the homeless to buy boxes?
Seriously, it is time to return to a single payer plan. Look at the profits that Blue Cross claimed for last year: $222 million (Blue Cross Earnings). And somehow Blue Cross is reported as a non-profit company. What a joke. Their CEOs make more in a year than I have made as a database programmer for ten years.
That is only one company. Add Harvard Vanguard, Tufts and all the other companies and you are looking at a surplus for universal healthcare. I say, enough with these middlemen. Give everyone Medicare. These insurance carriers are driving costs up with their forced administrative fees. I worked for Blue Cross and know how they operate. 97% of all claims are automatically rejected. Yes, they are reviewed and yes, the reviewers are trained to reject them arbitrarily for any reason they can find. This forces the service providers to hire administrative staff to fight with Blue Cross to get paid for services. It is enough already! Brian Mooney is clearly sucking the teat of the insurance industry. Honestly, who paid him to write this, Blue Cross, Mitt Romney or both?
I have been unemployed for 6 months and MassHealth has rejected me for a long list of reasons (I earn too much, I need more documentation, I have to use the unemployment first, etc.). Shame on Mitt Romney and shame on the conservatives who want to privatize everything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that privatization drives up costs and drives out consumers. The state comes in to force the populace to consume a commodity that is less necessary than food, shelter, clothing and even education. The solution is simple. It will take a complete removal of insurance lobbies from the public sector. Yes, companies like Blue Cross and Tufts will be destroyed. But why are we allowing them to profit from the misery of others? Why should we allow government agencies to force citizens to buy a commodity that they do not need?
Why indeed.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Bad Teacher Sets a Bad Example
I recently witnessed a commercial for the movie the Bad Teacher. In that commercial Cameron Diaz instructs two students to hold the arms of another so she can nail him with a playground ball. As a parent of children who were bullied and as someone who was bullied viciously in school, I am appalled. How can the studio make light of such a horrible act?
In Bridgewater Massachusetts two boys were caught on video holding another boy while a fourth beat him. The savageness of dodge ball has been used on virtually every victim of bullying throughout America. These things are neither funny, nor clever plot devices. These are horrifying realities for many people. The film Bad Teacher spits in the eye of every bullied person.
I would like to think that a multi-billion dollar studio such as Sony would exercise better social responsibility. To glamorize this act enforces the mentality that fosters bullies and perpetuates the violence. Shame on Sony and star Cameron Diaz.
I witnessed one very offensive scene being advertised. I refuse to see this movie on the assumption that other scenes will also portray glamorized depictions of violence or glorify demeaning behavior and bullying. I am calling for everyone who has ever been bullied or has children who are bullied to boycott this film.
In Bridgewater Massachusetts two boys were caught on video holding another boy while a fourth beat him. The savageness of dodge ball has been used on virtually every victim of bullying throughout America. These things are neither funny, nor clever plot devices. These are horrifying realities for many people. The film Bad Teacher spits in the eye of every bullied person.
I would like to think that a multi-billion dollar studio such as Sony would exercise better social responsibility. To glamorize this act enforces the mentality that fosters bullies and perpetuates the violence. Shame on Sony and star Cameron Diaz.
I witnessed one very offensive scene being advertised. I refuse to see this movie on the assumption that other scenes will also portray glamorized depictions of violence or glorify demeaning behavior and bullying. I am calling for everyone who has ever been bullied or has children who are bullied to boycott this film.
Friday, June 10, 2011
My First Day of High School
I was never fond of school and despise compulsory activity. As an adult I often have difficulty reconciling the obligations to myself with the statutory servitude of the “free world.” I have had several career success and failures forcing the acceptance of my ideas and beliefs. I want to provide a good life for my family but cannot stomach the political playing field that must be navigated in order to get ahead or survive. When reflecting on my experiences in public school I often yearn to go back in time. If only I could infuse the young Sean with my current fortitude to compel others to take me seriously.
I have always enjoyed learning. Reading, writing and drawing are my favorite pastimes. It was the institution of school that I despised. The inspirational teachers were few and far between. To reach them I had to endure the insufferable hacks who had no business instructing children in their myopic lies about history. Worse than that was the British colonialist approach of shouting ever louder when a student did not understand the logic of a lesson. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to my first day of high school. As a Navy brat, I developed a talent for making friends. I love exploring new places and meeting different people. When I reached my 18th birthday, this would translate into wanderlust. While others focused on their careers and educations, my sights were set on the horizon. My mind begged to know what I was missing out on. Thus, my first day of high school would be an adventure that I embraced with wide-eyed innocence.
Whitman had two middle and four elementary schools in the days before condominiums replaced most buildings. However, the high school was regional. It shared its name and students with Hanson Massachusetts. Homeroom was not too bad. Mr. Ballard’s stiff brown suit and Joe Friday haircut belied his humanity. Most of the other students were either from the other middle schools or Hanson. I took my seat and thought I heard someone say “dirtball.” I was not sure whom it would have been directed at or if I even heard correctly, so I ignored it. We were given our schedules and dispersed when the bell rang.
Each class was smaller than the last. Although the amount of students remained large, the walls seemed to be closing. More names carried over the teacher’s discussions. “Dirtbag, Scumbag, Faggot, and Queer” resounded more in each period. There was no mistaking it; I was the target of the jeers. Whenever I turned to look at the perpetrators I was met with laughing faces. Granted, my hair was a tangled mess of bushy waves, curls, and cowlicks. Did this warrant all of the names and accusations of less than adequate hygiene? The air was thick with menace. Every taunt ricocheted off of the suffocating walls. Insults hissed just behind my ears. The teachers did nothing to reprimand the offenders. Some faculty members even chuckled. No one would come to my aid.
Between classes I walked a gauntlet of humiliation. Balled up paper was hurled at me from every angle. Kids turned and laughed in my face. Heckles raised crescendos of anguish. I did not respond. I did not cry. I did not stop to fight or ask them why. I only faced forward and walked. Regardless of the surface calm, inside me brewed a contempt that would fuel my actions for the next three years. As I walked towards the gym class I saw the coaches. Their large muscles and crew cuts would be of little comfort to me. They chuckled as I walked into the gymnasium.
The stadium seats were open. Kids were filing in to occupy islands of corduroys. I grabbed a seat towards the front. I barely knew anyone. The few that I did recognize ignored me. The shrill tweet of a whistle silenced the din. For a moment I was relieved that the taunts had dissolved. The coaches discussed the militaristic nature of class. We would line up at the beginning. They would bark out the row call by last name first and first name last. We would shout “Here” in response. If anyone did not have a uniform (standard issue gym shorts, tee shirt, sox and sneakers) that person would instead call out “N.U.”: no uniform. The names began to punctuate the coaches’ instructions. Then came the cavalcade of snorts and laughter.
“You got gum in yer hair dirtbag,” a lone voice above the din shouted. I felt around my bushy mop. I found the chewed wad clinging to my thicket of curls. More gibes filled the air. “Idiot, Moron, Get a Haircut, Scumbag,” now joined the chorus. Oxygen could not move into my lungs. My hands shook. My legs were sweating. “Am I pissing?” I wondered. One of the gym teachers beckoned me forward. His large banana hands grabbed my puny arms and turned me.
“Yep, you got gum in your hair,” he said letting go of my arm. As I righted myself I saw that he was stifling his laughter. “Go to the nurses office and have her cut it out.”
“Do I need a pass?” I asked. My voice, cracked just above a whisper. My chest was pounding. I felt fire inside my face. The large sneering smirk before me seethed hatred through my veins. I would not turn to face the bastards behind me. Instead, I focused on the white 200-pound gorilla, with a whistle around his neck.
“No,” he snickered. “Just go.” As I walked out the door I heard the laughter. What I did not hear was any reprimands. No punishments came for the perpetrators of elitist torment. This was the first of many times that I would be banished from class after being assaulted, but the only time the nurse’s office was my destination. The following years would see me escorted by the security officer to the principal’s office, in-school suspension and even being shoved out the door and told to leave.
Tears welled in the bottom lid of my eyes as I walked down the hall. I fought them back before seeing the nurse. I would never give them the satisfaction of breaking me. I entered her office and explained what happened.
“This is disgusting,” she exclaimed. “I will cut this out today, but you need to get a haircut because I will not do this again.” She continued to berate me. Her tongue lashed at me, kicking a wounded dog in the ribs. Just when I thought she could not hurt my pride further, she un-ceremonially grabbed the offending tufts of hair and chopped a large chunk out. As messy as my tangled webs of curls were, it was not hacked up until that moment. I left her office when the bell rang. My shoulders slumped down. My head hung low. I could feel a breeze in the spot she cut. Yet, I did not get a haircut after that. It would be another year before I would consider it.
A couple of months later I would stand before a mirror bawling my eyes out, lopping off large hunks of my hair. After my first day of high school kids called my house and threatened me daily. People were yelling horrible things from cars everywhere I went. I grew to favor the solitude of the woods. Whitman/Hanson was Lord of the Flies and I was Simon. The last straw came during a gym class where I was cornered by several jocks. They threatened me. If I did not get a haircut by the next day they would cut it all off with their buck knives. So that night I stood before my mirror: crying, cutting and cursing.
“You want my haircut muthafuckas, you got it.” The words barely choked from my throat. From there forward my hair was a horrific mess. It was a cross between Robert Smith of the Cure and pre-afro Jimi Hendrix. When that wad of gum hit my hair on that first day, something inside of me awoke. I have always had a fierce anti-authoritarian streak but what came out in those years was a monster. I hated high school and did everything in my power to undermine it. Whereas I could not possibly battle the Neanderthals and preppies without being beaten severely, I knew the faculty could not touch me. A power struggle ensued between the school authorities and myself. Until I officially quit and took the GED test, all of my efforts went into shattering the façade that the principal and her lackeys exhibited.
My high school experiences resonate deeply within me. Usually my family, work, and school consume my time. I also enjoy the company of friends, get tattoos, and carry on with multiple projects to feed my creative spirit. Every once in a while I will see someone being bullied in the news or closer to home. The recent video depicting three jocks beating up a middle school kid in Bridgewater has fueled my hostility towards aggressors. Although I have many interesting experiences to write about, this topic has gripped my imagination. The catalyst of my high school rebellion was that wad of gum: the spitball heard round the world. My reaction was to lash out and undermine the authorities that fostered the brutal cross that I was forced to bear. I blamed the jocks for their barbarous conduct, but hated the school authorities. In many ways this still feeds my idealism. I hold myself to be a humanist. I have been called a socialist, Marxist, commie, and even a traitor because I care about the plight of people. I blame the myopic views of Tea Partiers and Conservatives, but hate the corrupt politicians and the corporate autocrats who own them.
I wish I could look back at my high school years with a clear mind or a mature perspective. I do not have it in me to do so. I see my experience as a shared nightmare. I want others to read this and feel my pain and anger–to know what I know. Many schools still shelter bullies and punish the victims. The aforementioned Bridgewater student had been bullied for over a year before the video was unleashed on YouTube. His mother had hired a lawyer to draft a letter to the school when the principal ignored her pleas. Now that school claims a “Zero Tolerance” policy regarding bullying. It is clear that this is a lie.
My belief is that I am being challenged to find an effective way to combat bullying. Tougher laws only encourage schools to hide evidence of their complicity. The real weapon is education. Our children must all be taught the importance of acceptance, compassion, and diversity. When I look at the woods I see different types of trees with a plethora of colors and shapes. Even within a specific genus there is exclusivity. Every tree and every leaf has its own unique character. Yet, when I view them as a whole I am confronted with a beauty whose magnitude is beyond words. This is how society should be. Individuality should be encouraged because we all contribute to an eternal humanity.
I have always enjoyed learning. Reading, writing and drawing are my favorite pastimes. It was the institution of school that I despised. The inspirational teachers were few and far between. To reach them I had to endure the insufferable hacks who had no business instructing children in their myopic lies about history. Worse than that was the British colonialist approach of shouting ever louder when a student did not understand the logic of a lesson. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to my first day of high school. As a Navy brat, I developed a talent for making friends. I love exploring new places and meeting different people. When I reached my 18th birthday, this would translate into wanderlust. While others focused on their careers and educations, my sights were set on the horizon. My mind begged to know what I was missing out on. Thus, my first day of high school would be an adventure that I embraced with wide-eyed innocence.
Whitman had two middle and four elementary schools in the days before condominiums replaced most buildings. However, the high school was regional. It shared its name and students with Hanson Massachusetts. Homeroom was not too bad. Mr. Ballard’s stiff brown suit and Joe Friday haircut belied his humanity. Most of the other students were either from the other middle schools or Hanson. I took my seat and thought I heard someone say “dirtball.” I was not sure whom it would have been directed at or if I even heard correctly, so I ignored it. We were given our schedules and dispersed when the bell rang.
Each class was smaller than the last. Although the amount of students remained large, the walls seemed to be closing. More names carried over the teacher’s discussions. “Dirtbag, Scumbag, Faggot, and Queer” resounded more in each period. There was no mistaking it; I was the target of the jeers. Whenever I turned to look at the perpetrators I was met with laughing faces. Granted, my hair was a tangled mess of bushy waves, curls, and cowlicks. Did this warrant all of the names and accusations of less than adequate hygiene? The air was thick with menace. Every taunt ricocheted off of the suffocating walls. Insults hissed just behind my ears. The teachers did nothing to reprimand the offenders. Some faculty members even chuckled. No one would come to my aid.
Between classes I walked a gauntlet of humiliation. Balled up paper was hurled at me from every angle. Kids turned and laughed in my face. Heckles raised crescendos of anguish. I did not respond. I did not cry. I did not stop to fight or ask them why. I only faced forward and walked. Regardless of the surface calm, inside me brewed a contempt that would fuel my actions for the next three years. As I walked towards the gym class I saw the coaches. Their large muscles and crew cuts would be of little comfort to me. They chuckled as I walked into the gymnasium.
The stadium seats were open. Kids were filing in to occupy islands of corduroys. I grabbed a seat towards the front. I barely knew anyone. The few that I did recognize ignored me. The shrill tweet of a whistle silenced the din. For a moment I was relieved that the taunts had dissolved. The coaches discussed the militaristic nature of class. We would line up at the beginning. They would bark out the row call by last name first and first name last. We would shout “Here” in response. If anyone did not have a uniform (standard issue gym shorts, tee shirt, sox and sneakers) that person would instead call out “N.U.”: no uniform. The names began to punctuate the coaches’ instructions. Then came the cavalcade of snorts and laughter.
“You got gum in yer hair dirtbag,” a lone voice above the din shouted. I felt around my bushy mop. I found the chewed wad clinging to my thicket of curls. More gibes filled the air. “Idiot, Moron, Get a Haircut, Scumbag,” now joined the chorus. Oxygen could not move into my lungs. My hands shook. My legs were sweating. “Am I pissing?” I wondered. One of the gym teachers beckoned me forward. His large banana hands grabbed my puny arms and turned me.
“Yep, you got gum in your hair,” he said letting go of my arm. As I righted myself I saw that he was stifling his laughter. “Go to the nurses office and have her cut it out.”
“Do I need a pass?” I asked. My voice, cracked just above a whisper. My chest was pounding. I felt fire inside my face. The large sneering smirk before me seethed hatred through my veins. I would not turn to face the bastards behind me. Instead, I focused on the white 200-pound gorilla, with a whistle around his neck.
“No,” he snickered. “Just go.” As I walked out the door I heard the laughter. What I did not hear was any reprimands. No punishments came for the perpetrators of elitist torment. This was the first of many times that I would be banished from class after being assaulted, but the only time the nurse’s office was my destination. The following years would see me escorted by the security officer to the principal’s office, in-school suspension and even being shoved out the door and told to leave.
Tears welled in the bottom lid of my eyes as I walked down the hall. I fought them back before seeing the nurse. I would never give them the satisfaction of breaking me. I entered her office and explained what happened.
“This is disgusting,” she exclaimed. “I will cut this out today, but you need to get a haircut because I will not do this again.” She continued to berate me. Her tongue lashed at me, kicking a wounded dog in the ribs. Just when I thought she could not hurt my pride further, she un-ceremonially grabbed the offending tufts of hair and chopped a large chunk out. As messy as my tangled webs of curls were, it was not hacked up until that moment. I left her office when the bell rang. My shoulders slumped down. My head hung low. I could feel a breeze in the spot she cut. Yet, I did not get a haircut after that. It would be another year before I would consider it.
A couple of months later I would stand before a mirror bawling my eyes out, lopping off large hunks of my hair. After my first day of high school kids called my house and threatened me daily. People were yelling horrible things from cars everywhere I went. I grew to favor the solitude of the woods. Whitman/Hanson was Lord of the Flies and I was Simon. The last straw came during a gym class where I was cornered by several jocks. They threatened me. If I did not get a haircut by the next day they would cut it all off with their buck knives. So that night I stood before my mirror: crying, cutting and cursing.
“You want my haircut muthafuckas, you got it.” The words barely choked from my throat. From there forward my hair was a horrific mess. It was a cross between Robert Smith of the Cure and pre-afro Jimi Hendrix. When that wad of gum hit my hair on that first day, something inside of me awoke. I have always had a fierce anti-authoritarian streak but what came out in those years was a monster. I hated high school and did everything in my power to undermine it. Whereas I could not possibly battle the Neanderthals and preppies without being beaten severely, I knew the faculty could not touch me. A power struggle ensued between the school authorities and myself. Until I officially quit and took the GED test, all of my efforts went into shattering the façade that the principal and her lackeys exhibited.
My high school experiences resonate deeply within me. Usually my family, work, and school consume my time. I also enjoy the company of friends, get tattoos, and carry on with multiple projects to feed my creative spirit. Every once in a while I will see someone being bullied in the news or closer to home. The recent video depicting three jocks beating up a middle school kid in Bridgewater has fueled my hostility towards aggressors. Although I have many interesting experiences to write about, this topic has gripped my imagination. The catalyst of my high school rebellion was that wad of gum: the spitball heard round the world. My reaction was to lash out and undermine the authorities that fostered the brutal cross that I was forced to bear. I blamed the jocks for their barbarous conduct, but hated the school authorities. In many ways this still feeds my idealism. I hold myself to be a humanist. I have been called a socialist, Marxist, commie, and even a traitor because I care about the plight of people. I blame the myopic views of Tea Partiers and Conservatives, but hate the corrupt politicians and the corporate autocrats who own them.
I wish I could look back at my high school years with a clear mind or a mature perspective. I do not have it in me to do so. I see my experience as a shared nightmare. I want others to read this and feel my pain and anger–to know what I know. Many schools still shelter bullies and punish the victims. The aforementioned Bridgewater student had been bullied for over a year before the video was unleashed on YouTube. His mother had hired a lawyer to draft a letter to the school when the principal ignored her pleas. Now that school claims a “Zero Tolerance” policy regarding bullying. It is clear that this is a lie.
My belief is that I am being challenged to find an effective way to combat bullying. Tougher laws only encourage schools to hide evidence of their complicity. The real weapon is education. Our children must all be taught the importance of acceptance, compassion, and diversity. When I look at the woods I see different types of trees with a plethora of colors and shapes. Even within a specific genus there is exclusivity. Every tree and every leaf has its own unique character. Yet, when I view them as a whole I am confronted with a beauty whose magnitude is beyond words. This is how society should be. Individuality should be encouraged because we all contribute to an eternal humanity.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
This Is A National Debate?
As Americans, should we not care more for the citizens of this great nation than the profit margins of corporations?
Think about it, why shouldn’t we extend Medicare to everyone? It works in Canada and several other EU states. Why should we spoon-feed our money to corporations like Blue Cross Blue Shield?
Why is their profit margin more important than the well being of every American!
The argument is that we cannot afford to do this. I say that we should end the occupation of lands in the Middle East and abroad. This alone would provide more than enough to fund Universal Health Care. I do not understand what the debate is. Either we get universal health care in the form of Medicare for everyone or we should revolt. Fuck Blue Cross and all of their evil piglets who suckle from their teat. You know who you are John Kerry!
--
Sean P. Pratt
339-788-2080
16 Kingswood Dr. E4
Abington MA 02351
Think about it, why shouldn’t we extend Medicare to everyone? It works in Canada and several other EU states. Why should we spoon-feed our money to corporations like Blue Cross Blue Shield?
Why is their profit margin more important than the well being of every American!
The argument is that we cannot afford to do this. I say that we should end the occupation of lands in the Middle East and abroad. This alone would provide more than enough to fund Universal Health Care. I do not understand what the debate is. Either we get universal health care in the form of Medicare for everyone or we should revolt. Fuck Blue Cross and all of their evil piglets who suckle from their teat. You know who you are John Kerry!
--
Sean P. Pratt
339-788-2080
16 Kingswood Dr. E4
Abington MA 02351
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)