Virginity!

This post is dedicated to all of those American women who frown sympathetically when the conversation turns to the Muslim women in Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia.  You know what I'm talking about, when someone says that "at least we have it better than they do."  

Well, yes, we do have it better than they do, in certain ways.  However - not to burst your bubble - I would like to point out that we are not quite as "liberated" as we would like to think we are.  We are foolish for not seeing the hypocrisy, as obvious as it is.

There are tons of reasons I can point out, but here is one case:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/22/virginity.value/?iref=mpstoryview

Yes, the virgin who sells her virginity online for millions of dollars.  This post is not about her, nor the Australian pervert who bought it.  It IS about the American society that finds this interesting.  It IS about the talk shows where people debate whether she really is a virgin or not.

My dear ladies, this is not much different than a dowry being paid to a family for a daughter's VIRGIN hand in marriage.  The "community" still gossips about whether she really was a virgin or not.  The only difference is in this case, the daughter gets the money and doesn't have to stay with the smelly old guy.

Most of us are still stuck in the 1700's, whether we would like to admit it or not.  We fool ourselves into thinking that things have changed, but they have not changed as much as we think they have.   Women still talk about other women who are more sexually liberated as whores, but yet men are valued for their conquests.  What's new?  What's old?   

More on this subject later...  I have plenty more to say.

 

Are Children's Lives Really Harder?

This post is inspired by an article today on the BBC, entitled "Selfish Adults 'Damage Childhood' ".  The article cites a study that concludes, among many other observations, that children have more difficult lives than they had in the past.  

I suspect that British society is similar enough to American society that I can make some basic comparisons without sounding ridiculous.   But first, let me just say, that this sounds like a pile of baloney!

My children, for example, have it MUCH easier in many ways than I did growing up.  Our society overprotects them.  They can't play outside without direct adult supervision.  Instead, they are surrounded by  vast seas of computers, game consoles, books and toys.  Our middle class lifestyle, like most Western households, affords them a comfortable supply of decent clothes to wear.  They are also fortunate enough to have musical instruments to play and access to quality instruction.  In addition, they go to a public school (with no cost), where they have an arguable sufficient education.  Finally, there are extra activities such as Boy Scouts, Chorus, etc...

They don't have to walk to school in the snow, worry about where dinner is coming from tonight, wonder if they will make it to work on time, worry about their boss being angry with them for not working fast enough, etc...  

Have any of you ever read David Copperfield?  Well, if you have then you know that kids these days have it much easier than they did in the 1800's (i.e. not having to get jobs at 8 years old).   There are many, many children in developing countries that still live in conditions not unlike those of David Copperfield.  

Let's get some perspective!

The Responsibility of a Writer

I was listening to an interview with an author a few days ago and he mentioned briefly the responsibility that writers have to tell the truth.

This struck me.  I don't think he was referring to some sort of cultural or societal obligation or expectation.  It was more of a moral obligation that a writer should feel to tell the truth about the subject.  I thought about this, and wondered if it could be taken a step further.

The historical and cultural value of writing is huge.  We can study past civilizations and cultures through their writings.  Through their writings, we can learn about how their society functioned and what their values were.  In modern times, we learn through writings.  We learn from reading the newspaper, novels, textbooks and (of course!) blogs.  Perhaps some of the things that we learn from these sources are not "true" per se, in that the facts can be proven or disproven, but all of these writings serve as a way to hold our society together and advance as a civilization together.  

So this led me to think about the responsibility of a writer to tell stories as they truly see it - without holding back.  And the responsibility that you and I have to write, as much as we can.  There is a distinct value in everything written, and it should not be discounted.

When Rape is "Misconduct"

I originally heard about this news story on NPR (January 28, I believe).  The article that I am referring to for this blog posting can be found on LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-cia29-2009jan29,0,1298224.story

The CIA Chief in Algeria has been accused of using a kind of date rape drug to drug two women and rape them at his residence.  If that were not bad enough, he is also accused of taking many photographs of the women (allegedly found at his hotel room in Washington, DC).  

According to the NPR news story, one of the women was actually married and was friends with the CIA Chief.  The shock, shame and humiliation that she must have felt when she awoke in his bed the next day is hard to imagine.

The reason that this story infuriates me is because the US CIA spokesperson issued this statement:  "CIA would take seriously, and follow up vigorously, any allegation of misconduct." 

"Misconduct".  The female reporters on NPR actually used the word "impropriety".  We have a huge problem here when rape is described as misconduct or impropriety.  All of the women across our country should be outraged upon hearing this language used to describe one of the worst violations of human rights that a woman can experience.

If this were a homeless man accused of multiple rapes outside of Underground Atlanta, or some other downtown location, he would likely be in a jail cell waiting for his trial.  But, when it comes to a high ranking government official accused of "misconduct" and "impropriety" outside of our borders, he gets to remain comfortable - and hope that the various agencies involved won't be able to figure out who has jurisdiction.

Does anyone else find this outrageous?

Attention Wal-Mart Shoppers... Hyper-Consumerism on Isle 2

I just read this article on Yahoo! News...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death;_ylt=Aui5ug2nhRLvxiMRjeqHUj3LLJ94

We have a Wal-Mart store employee trampled to death by crazed deal-hungry shoppers this morning.  He was killed by a bunch of crazy, greedy shoppers who protested angrily when they were asked to leave after the death.  In addition, other employees were trampled when they tried to save him.  

What in the world has our American hyper-consumerism brought us to when a human life is taken in order to get a great deal on a plasma television, folks?

Would Jefferson have supported a Universal Healthcare System?

Disclaimer:  I am NOT an expert on Jefferson, I just play one on TV.

While researching this morning the origin of a dubious Jefferson quote (it was too conveniently relevant to modern times... maybe I'll do a post on that sometime!), I found a really nice website that has a lot of information on Jefferson's writings:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm

In addition, I stumbled upon a comment in a forum where a writer suggested that Jefferson would have been in favor of some sort of Universal Health care system:

http://www.radicalreference.info/node/2327

This concept was intriguing, because the founding fathers are always lifted up as super-human beings and their words are studied almost like scripture.  So, I thought, I would just scratch Jefferson's writings lightly on the surface to see if I could find a few excerpts where we can study his views on the individual v. collective rights argument.

Here are some quotes, with my comments.  I am extremely interested in your perspective.

Do you consider caring for our fellow citizens at a basic level a moral obligation?

"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right." 

--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806. FE 8:477

"We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations as with individuals, 

our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties." 

--Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:375

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of 

them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of 

the rights of the individuals." 

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

Jefferson wrote extensively on happiness, as well all know.  Is happiness really an inalienable right?  What is your definition of happiness?  What was Jefferson's?  Is it possible to have either form of happiness when you are dying of cancer because you cannot afford the treatment? 

"The Giver of life gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness." 

--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1782. ME 4:196, Papers 6:186

And finally, since I know that the everyone's main concern about Universal Health Care is taxation.  Jefferson, thankfully, wrote a lot about taxation.  He found it a necessary function of government, and warned of waste, of course.  In addition, he was a supporter of Americans not being taxed by a government that does not represent us.  I hear comments and protests about taxes, shouting how some don't pay taxes and how it's not fair that some have more of a tax burden than others.  Here is a Jefferson quote for that subject, since it is really relevant  to the health care discussion:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a 

certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

 --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

I'm ready!

Is it possible to be "Over-Educated?"

As a person goes through life, there is a really high possibility that they will encounter ideas that are foreign to them and that will challenge their core values and beliefs.  I think this is the basis for higher education  - to challenge our core values and beliefs.  Sometimes, after learning about a new idea or concept, I come back to my original belief.  Other times, I decide that maybe what I have been believing all this time may not have been based in fact.

But, as a highly educated person, I must ask you to think about the definition of fact?  Is there such a thing as a fact, or is a fact an abstract concept that can be manipulated?  I think facts are abstract concepts, which leads me to the conclusion that all of our opinions are based on abstract concepts.

You can take a simple statement, such as the sky being "blue".  What is "blue?"  Can you define "blue?"  Will your definition of "blue" be the same as mine, and the same as our friends'?  Can "blue" even be described?  As I write this, the meaning of "blue" has actually diminished in my mind, and has now become a clump of letters that some ancient people made up to help them describe, as accurately as possible, potentially abstract concepts.

If you think I'm wrong, think about the definition of life.  A doctor may have a universally agreed upon definition of life (i.e. what type of physiological functions are necessary to have in order to be 'alive'), but the word 'life' means so much to so many different people.  Ask a teenager who is grounded and can't go to the prom.  Is that life?  What do we mean when we tell people to "get a life?"  Is there some popular standard that means that you have a "life"?

In conclusion, I will leave you with a final question:  What is truth?  Maybe you will see, like I do, sometimes, when I am not clutching violently to some belief, that truth, like fact, is an abstract concept and appears differently to everyone who sees it - and even to those who cannot.