Soapbox No. 2: The Angry Bitch Post

Disclaimer right now: This post is going to be more angry than pensive, unlike my other more non-narrative posts. So, if blunt-to-the-point-of aggressive thoughts (or the peppering of the "F" word) bothers you, you may wish to skip this one. Warning: it will be entirely un-PC.

I saw an article today that got me fuming for pretty much half the day. Apparently, some court in Germany has decided that male circumcision of infants, is assault, effectively banning the practice, at least legally. Interestingly, this is a law that will primarily affect only religious and ethnic minorities-- namely, Jews and Muslims-- because the court specifically said that it is banned in the case of religious--as opposed to medical (and I guess then, hygienic?)-- reasons.

First: Germany. No one in the official media is sayin' it, but you *know* we are all thinking it...

Secondly, this ruling is crap. The court, in its opinion, said the "fundamental right of the child to lebensraum bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents." This ruling puts into legal precedent something a lot of bleeding-heart types have wanted for a long time: basically, to force religious leaders and doctors (the law in Germany didn't preclude the practice if done by doctors, but this is in fact what a lot of the proponents for this type of ban actually do want) to stop performing the procedure. Namely, to take away people's right to consider the pros and cons, and decide for themselves. In doing so, these do-gooder types have described the practice as "barbaric," and have likened it to female genital mutilation, which is practiced in many, lesser-developed societies. The court said that it takes away the child's right to "choose his religion" later on, because *so* much of your spirituality is dependent on being "intact" (I would like to point out at this juncture that there are many people of all sorts of religions, or none at all, that have it done. So no, I don't think anyone is going to say you can't decide to be Catholic when you are older, because a moyel did a bris on you when you were 8 days old). And, from what I can tell from reading the comments by the peanut gallery that tend to come after such internet articles, most people agreed with this decision, and want to see it "spread" to the rest of the civilized world.

I am going to address (briefly) some of their arguments:

1. It is not just an "old religious tradition" that has no practical meaning. Now, if you know anything about me, you know my thoughts on religion (Sparknotes version: I don't like it). But every so often, it actually gets something right. Shocking, I know. Look, a lot of what got codified as religious dogma back in the day, actually came out of practical realities of the time, dictates that were put down so that people wouldn't get their assess kicked by nature, and thus the society could survive. One of these things was circumcision. Namely, intact people have a higher chance of getting very painful infections, because bacteria and other nasties can get trapped, um, "there," if not thoroughly cleaned. Since it was hard to be thoroughly cleaned back in the day, it was a good preventative measure in terms of not getting what I imagine would be a really nasty condition. Now, proponents of the no-circumcision thing say that this is no longer necessary, as we live in a much more hygienic society, and it is unlikely that it will cause problems, so you are putting someone through trauma for no reason. Which brings me to my next point...

2. Just because it is "less likely" to cause problems, doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. Now, I a not a religious person, but if I ever have sons-- assuming the bleeding hearts haven't rammed through some kind of law banning it by then-- I am going to get them "altered" at the hospital, before we leave. Why? Because the peace of mind that it is one less potentially very problematic health issue they will have to deal with growing up. As humans, we take out and preemptively deal with "unnecessary" body parts all the time, before they become an issue. Exhibit A: wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are pretty much universally taken out now when a teen is around 16 years old, before they have erupted. Why? Because when they erupt, at best they cause teeth to overcrowd, and at worst they grow in impacted, leading to a very painful, likely-to-be infected,situation. So we take them out ahead of time, to just avoid the whole nasty situation. It is likewise the same with circumcision. Yes, it is a "natural" part of the male body, but no, males do not need it, and the potential problems it can cause down the line just aren't worth having it around.

3. Now, a lot of proponents of no circumcision would say, "but any surgical or quasi-surgical procedure carries a risk that someone is going to botch it, or that it will be infected, and so it is an unnecessary risk." Yes, that is in fact true. Hopefully, you vet the people performing these things, but shit does, in fact, happen. Same can be said for wisdom teeth. In fact, I think the risk of infection might be higher for wisdom teeth, since I kept hearing horror stories about dry socket before I got mine done. And thus I was paranoid about following doctor's orders, and keeping my mouth clean. But you know what? If the doctor or moyel knows what he is doing, I bet that risk is pretty low, probably lower than the risk of infection if you keep it around (you can clean yourself all you want, but the skin is easily inflamed or infected, particularly if you have bad skin to begin with. I consider myself pretty hygienic; still didn't prevent me from getting a bad cyst infection this year that required (very painful, like a 9/10 on the scale ER doctors keep asking you about) draining and two visits to the ER). And what do you think is more traumatic for someone? An infection in infancy, when you won't remember it, or a very painful infection "down there" that you have to deal with after your brain and neuron connections have fully developed? A minor surgical procedure when you are a week old, or a what will be a more major surgery should you choose to get it done later in life? I had some pretty serious operations in infancy that, while I get to tell some cool/shocking stories about them, I thank my lucky stars that I don't remember jack shit, because I don't know if I could mentally handle "heart failure" and "open heart surgery" thrown at me, now that I am old enough to be aware of what that means, and what getting it worked on could entail (namely, flatlining in the OR). Oh, and: Twice. Twice this happened. I don't need that in my memory.

4. Which again brings me to another point: pain. A lot of people think it is bad because it is painful for the babies. This is the only point on which they have kind of a point. Apparently, when done in religious ceremonies, or even in some hospitals, they don't bother to use anesthesia. That is fucking stupid, I admit. Spring a lil cash, and get some local anesthesia. Problem solved. A lot of the proponents of this ban say that by deferring it, you are letting the guy decide on his bodily integrity later in life, when he has capacity to control his destiny or whatever. You know what is going to be more painful than some un-anesthetized cutting when the infant is too young to remember? Cutting it when it has fully developed, necessitating a more major procedure, and thus a more protracted recovery time. I had some foot surgery done last summer, and I had to take the Vicodin they gave me to the max dosage to get the pain down during recovery. And then my body couldn't handle it, so I vomited. So basically, it fucking sucked. So, what guy is going to want to voluntarily go through this when he is older, even if it is objectively beneficial?

5. People who claim that circumcision-- particularly in a religious context-- is "mutilation," and compare it to the hack job that women in undeveloped societies have to deal with. If you can't tell the difference between a minor quasi-surgical procedure that has objective health benefits and an easy recovery, and a procedure that is meant to take all sexual pleasure away from women by creating constant pain, as a way to keep them virgins until they marry, and then obedient to their husbands (or murder, or honor killings or foot binding, or abortion, which are some of the other comparisons people have been making), then sorry. You are a fucking idiot.

Although, this court in Germany might just get the Nobel Peace Prize for their little stunt. Because they just did the fucking impossible: they succeeded in uniting the Jewish and Muslim populations, in solidarity outrage over this law that makes a major ceremony in their respective religions illegal.

Why do I bring this all up? Because this law is the epitome of why it is becoming increasingly less of a question of "if," and more of a question of "when" I am going to give up on society as a whole, and go somewhere remote to become a crazy cat lady (or dogs, or bunnies, or really any small, fluffy, blood pressure-reducing critter).

Why? Because increasingly, I am seeing that one cannot escape from the tyranny of the "opinion" if one is to live in society. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one. Except people aren't happy having their opinions be just that: opinions. Oh no, they have to make everyone agree with their opinions, if not by persuasion then by force. Like this law: because *some* people think that circumcision is not necessary and a bad practice, they now must take away the ability of parents to fully consider the issue, and then make the decision they find is best for their child. Oh no, because *they* think it is bad, it must be bad as they could not *possibly* be wrong, so *they* should get to decide for everyone else. Because, you know, anyone who disagrees is obviously a barbarian, and so we couldn't possibly listen to what they have to say, or consider their side. Or a slut.

And I see this everywhere I go, from official policy to family, religious and culture tradition, to peer pressure. People think they got it all figured out, and that because something works for them, or comports with their morality or world view, everyone else must follow suit. You know why I don't "do" religion? I got into a big fight about this with my mom on my parent's anniversary. I told my mom "I am not a Christian," (which I am not-- I am not anything, even though I grew up Episcopalian/Anglican/whatever). She got all angry because she thought that my declaration was my trying to disavow my heritage, culture, and the way my parents raised me. That is not it at all. I think I take a lot of deference to the values my parents instilled in me-- like honesty, loyalty, hard work, and independence. But I can have those values without being tied down to a religious doctrine. In reality, I don't "do" religion because all I see it as, is more bars on the jailhouse door, so to speak. With everyone else trying to force their way of living or beliefs on you, why would anyone gratuitously add yet another level of restriction and dictation, of "moral imperative," particularly given by people who have no idea about the individual circumstances of others, and are taking their direction from a book or books (depending on your religion) written in a society in no way, shape, or form similar to the way we are living now? That is why I don't do religion, primarily (there is also the issue that I think that the question of whether there is a god/higher power, is not dispositive of the question of whether we should worship it or do what it says. But that is a post for another day.)

Basically, I follow a simple life philosophy, cliched but true: live and let live. As much as possible, I try to not gratuitously be a bitch to people, or get up in their business. I observe things around me, I observe how people behave. And a lot of it I may not approve of, because it violates my sense of what it is to not be a jerk, and therefore wouldn't do myself. But, so long as what these people are doing doesn't directly affect my ability to lead my quiet, relatively uneventful life in peace, I am not enough of an arrogant prick to think that because I think certain things are wrong or stupid, I should force others to comply with the way I behave. Because the only person who knows what is right for a person, is that person. And sometimes people make bad choices, and have to-- or should have to-- deal with the consequences. This is what I believe in regards to others, so I expect the same common courtesy in return. I am not my brother's keeper, and neither is he mine. And that, my friends, is the essence of freedom: the ability to define one's own existence, in peace. To rise and fall as the results of one's own actions. To make choices, and to learn from them. To *live*. To, in the words of our Founding Fathers, pursue happiness, so long as it is not in a destructive way (towards others. And no, "emotional distress" or "being offended" don't count. To use the language of the German court, the right to free speech-- as expression is part of really living-- outweighs any right to not have one's feelings hurt). Existing and living are not the same thing. I don't want to be part of a society that only lets me exist, and not live. This is also incidentally why no, I am not some crazy Anarchist. I think organized government and a legal system is imperative to preserving-- as much as possible-- the right to live and let live. Since rapists, murders, thieves, fundamentally violate this credo. And deserve their just desserts for it.

Sometimes I think maybe things will change, maybe people will see the light and start valuing freedom over their own little pet sensibilities. But no, it seems that increasingly, people are willing to trade their freedom-- and encourage others to take freedoms and choices away-- for whatever reason they agree with. On the right, it is this bullshit moral majority crap (because when one decides to have sex, or whether one exposes his or her hair or their skin, or whether one use contraception, or who one consensually loves and marries, or if one eats dairy with meat, or meat on Fridays, or works on the Sabbath, is so fucking dispositive of whether or not they are a "good" person, and so fucking relevant to the lives of those not involved). On the left, it is this collectivist mindset of "for the good of everyone/the whole/society." Or, you know, environment (also, have you people learned nothing from the 20th century? The path to hell is fucking paved with trying to forcibly promote or establish some person's or people's idea of "for the good of society." Seriously, go open a history book, and educate yourselves). And as much as either side is willing to call out their nemesis's bullshit, they will refuse to look at, analyze, or call out their own, finding a million and one excuses (my favorite, on the left, is the "externalities" argument. Yeah, pretty much everything has externalities. Still doesn't mean you should be able to tell me when and where I can have a fire in my fireplace, IN MY OWN GODDAMN HOUSE) why the other side's efforts to curtail freedom and choice is crap, but *their* pet projects are right and fine and "the right thing to do." And people will clamor to this, and actively promote and accept it, if it goes along with whatever excuse they happen to find persuasive. So the result is, we are constantly being squeezed, from the right, from the left.

One of the objections my boyfriend has when we get into this discussion, which usually turns into a fight (my boyfriend, bless his heart, is the eternal optimist, and also profoundly liberal), is that I have had a comparatively blessed life, so "why am I angry?" he says. For the most part, things have gone my way, and I have been lucky enough to have a lot of freedom, a lot of opportunity, and not much in my way. Aside from that lil snafu at the beginning of my life (which has not been a further problem for 21 years), I've had it good. So perhaps it seems bratty that I am so angry about all of this. But that is exactly my point: it is comparatively good right now, for me more than a lot of others, but for most people as well. It could always be better, but we are no longer indentured servants on feudal estates, having to do what "god and country (being one dude who has everything go his way)" tell us to do. We are living the Enlightenment dream, to be fully autonomous, free-thinking individuals. Or at least we should be. But freedom is a very precarious thing, it is fragile and exceedingly fleeting. Drop the ball once, relax on your laurels of individualism too long, and it can be snatched from under you. And what I am seeing around the globe lately-- retrenchment back into religious dogma, or a heightened drive towards "collectivism" -- threatens the delicate liberty we were all taught to believe in. And the problem is, people don't seem to care. They are too distracted by infighting to notice, and in many instances, are willing participants. For a long time, this country (with the exception maybe of the influence of the church, unfortunately) generally had a hands-off approach to people doing their thing, whether through official policy or otherwise. I feel like we are getting away from this, and this is bad. That is why, even though my existence is privileged, I must-- as should we all-- call out the bullshit when we see it. Because people trying to unduly control others (and I don't even mean in an official way, like with laws, but just in general) is like a cancer-- easier to keep in check when it is small and just beginning, but if it infects the body, it is exceedingly difficult to kill, and either the disease-- or, in some cases, the treatment-- will end up killing the body. But, it seems like no one is really willing to do this, because they agree with some of it, and fail to see the forest for the trees. Which depresses the hell out of me.

I imagine for my fiercely individualist views, I will be called or thought of in many different, unflattering terms: crazy, selfish, cold, mean, bitchy, uncaring, hedonistic, immoral, unbalanced, "a slut." But, if you couldn't tell from my blog, I really stopped giving these labels any sort of power over me, a long time ago. It not my problem what people choose to label or see me as, as long as I am true and honest to myself. Yes, it is important to be mindful of how one is perceived, but not at the expense of what makes you, you. As someone once said (again a cliche, but true): it is better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you are not. So, I guess if it really gets to an extreme point of people trying to force others into their version of conformity, I probably will leave for a remote destination; like a line from one of my favorite movies says, I will "leave the madness over the mountains." Because I won't compromise myself or my integrity just to "get on" in the world.

Damn. I am starting to sound like Holden-fucking-Caufield. And I didn't even really like that book much.

Readers, if any of you agree with me on any of the above, please do leave comments. It would be nice to know that I am not alone. Or better yet, send your friends the link to this page, to "spread the word." But, somehow I don't think this will really happen, as I think I am in the significant minority over here.

Anyway, thanks for listening/reading. Particularly if any of what I said just attacked what you believed. If you continued reading in spite of that, I have a lot of respect for you. I am just trying to get people to think, to stop reacting and start acting. And sometimes you just have to be blunt. Anyway, it will be back to the regular mood of this blog on the next post.

Battle Cry of an Iconoclast

Hello. My name is Kristin, and I am an iconoclast.

And no, I don't mean those old religious people who like 500 years ago were against images of God or whatever. I mean, over the last several years, I have developed a world-view that in many ways, goes against currently-accepted social thought. Some of that thought is relatively recent neo-liberal doublethink, some of it is 1000s of years of human thought. Which means, I will probably at some point in my life hurt/piss off/offend people who have bought into any of the above. I honestly don't know what to do; I don't hold any of these beliefs in malice or to harm anyone. I hold these beliefs because at my core being, the one principle I hold above all others, is that humans were and are meant to be free. That humans have a right and deserve to be free. Honestly, that is why I am interested in criminal law: I believe that criminals take from others that right. I don't construe freedom as, "let's all just run wild like hyenas." I construe freedom as the ability to choose the definitions and experiences of one's own life, in ways that do not palpably harm another (in terms of physical violation or property violation; I get off the boat at "emotional distress" or "offense.") But, I feel like not so many people--friends, family, loved ones, co-workers-- will not be so understanding of my beliefs, and will some how take it personally that I hold them. So, I guess this is in my in-advance apology. If I say or do anything to upset you out of these beliefs, know that I do it not because I think less of you, but because just as some cling fervently to their religion or their country or their politics or their cause, this desire for freedom is my religion. I cannot let it go any more than the Pope can let go of his faith.

So, here are some of the things I believe, that will probably make me a social pariah. Alas.

1. Religion. Why? Why should I construe my life or behavior according to what some guys (because let's be real, most religions were written by men) wrote down a long time ago? This isn't even getting to the question of whether a god or gods exist (although, its existence wouldn't change my belief; if a god or god-like power exists, it has shown itself to be a tyrant of sorts, and goes against humanity's right to freedom and self-determination). I am totally willing to admit that when they wrote the rules, many--perhaps most-- came out of the practical needs and realities of the time and societies in which they arose. Great. But times change, people change, society changes and moves on. Why should the dictates of 500, 2000, 4000 years ago still be relevant to my life, to my own sense of morality? Obviously, there are the basics: don't lie, don't steal, don't kill anyone. But beyond that, so much has changed. The world is not at all structured the way it was back in the day. I think the core of religions is basically, "don't be a jerk." Beyond that, why should it matter if my hair shows, if I eat meat on Fridays, if I use birth control, if I get married, if I don't get married, if I have one partner, if I have many?

2. The "American work ethic." I believe in hard work, I believe in believing in what you do, and trying to do it to the best of your ability. I believe that what you put into life, you should get out of it, but you should not just be handed things. That being said, I disagree with this mentality (not helped by the shitty economy) that you will or should jump through whatever hoops your boss puts in your way. I don't think working 80,90 hours a week is healthy. I don't think being "on call" 24/7 is healthy (thank you, Crackberries and SmartPhones). I also don't think being a lazy bum is healthy. This kind of goes along with the idea of, "everything in moderation." Take pride in your work, and do it well. But I refuse to sacrifice meaningful relationships (or, perhaps more urgently, my mental or physical health) for a job.

3. The problem of the "work-life balance" in America. Now, all of the following is heresy, but I have heard that a lawyer friend of the family who lives and works in Paris (he is French), doesn't take his work laptop with him on holiday. "Work is work, and vacation is vacation." And, at least as far as I can tell, his bosses and clients are just kind of...fine with that. In China, apparently, the family would be totally chill if you missed Granny's funeral because some major thing came up at work. Try pulling that in this country, and you will never hear the end of it, from both ends. "Where is the memo?" "Why weren't you at Bobby's State Championship hockey game?" Sometimes, I have this fantasy of putting my family, my boss and my clients into one room, and giving them the following speech: "Sometimes, I have to work, even when important things come up with the family. Other times, I have to be with the family, even if shit is blowing up at work. Sometimes, I will choose work over family. Sometimes, I will choose family over work. And all of you (pointing and squinting)... will just FUCKING DEAL WITH IT AND NOT GIVE ME SHIT ABOUT IT. Thank you. That is all." Because in both situations, we have people who are counting on us, whose very lives may be at stake at one time or another. And often times, there will be impossible conflicts, and you have to choose. That's compromise. That's life. Is it really so hard for the relevant parties to even try to understand?

4. Marriage/monogamy/til death do us part. Apparently, biological humans (homo sapien sapiens) have only spent about 5% of their history in long-term monogamous relationships (probably helped by the fact that tree-people humans croaked at age 25). Only 3-5% of all animal species are in paired-off relationships. It was a combination of thinking about all the recent celebrity sex scandals, the ridiculously-high divorce rate (and higher rate of infidelity, often leading to divorce), and a monologue in The Iceman Cometh, where this one character talks about how radical Marxism echews traditional marriage or relationship structures, because they are based on property and ownership, got me thinking. Forget for a moment that a bunch of recent research suggests humans are actually biologically programmed for, essentially, stable-ish relationships with a bit on the side. Fuck biology, because as people will argue, humans are cognitively able to overcome their base biological urges/instincts/etc. I think just from a freedom perspective, the Marxists may have a point (one of the few things on which they do). Isn't the whole idea that while in a relationship, married or not, the partners somehow "belong" to each other, kind of sick? This kind of goes along with number one, on religion. Historians, anthropologists, biologists suggest that monogamy arose as a response to the development of agricultural societies and the need to know "who da baby-daddy" for property-transfer interests. It arose in a situation where women and children were entirely dependent on the man, so you needed to know who was responsible. At least in the West, while not perfect by any means, we are more or less out of that kind of situation. And, back in the day, people croaked young. Now, the "ideal" sets us up for marriages or partnerships of 30, 40, 50, 60 years of being with the same person, and never shall you touch another. That seems very...wrong, in a way. Or it does to me. 50 years is a long time.

So now the idea is that you should and can only ever love one person at a time-- emotionally, physically, etc. But is this right? Are people fundamentally incapable of having a meaningful, loving relationship with more than one person? Why should they be? Love-- and I don't just me the freaky kind (although I think there is something to be said for the proven human biological need for a variety of physical sexual experiences), I mean the real, emotional connection people can have-- is one of the greatest things there is; why should it be limited to one person at a time? And why does it necessarily follow that if you feel such a connection for one person, feeling that for another will somehow take away from your feelings towards the first? I am not saying we should have a license to be irresponsible, because there are concerns over disease and the like. But are we really helped by the fact that people, while living the "fantasy" ideal relationships, have been dinking around with others forever-- and then lying about it, such that disease is more likely to be spread (syphilis in Europe circa 1900s, anyone)? I am not an idiot or a hypocrite; I admit I would be upset if someone "cheated" on me. But is this natural? Is this really the way it should be? Or have we been socially conditioned to think that such infidelity is some kind of personal insult, and not just the expression of the ultimate human need to love and be loved? I love my boyfriend, and I have never and would never do any of the above because we are in a relationship, because I know it would hurt him. And he is the last person on Earth who deserves to be hurt. But, perhaps we are doing ourselves a disservice-- and unintentionally caging those we love most-- by construing love, relationships, and marriage the way society has conditioned us to see and understand them. The strong are the ones who can keep trucking through, and "fight upstream" against the natural current, out of their love for another. My question is, why should this be a battle to begin with?

4. Political correctitude. Don't even get me started. I am going to throw something at the next person who says "diversity" or "sustainable" at me. Why? Not because I am inherently against these ideas, but because all these BS platitudes are kind of a way to curtail freedom of speech and expression. While liberals will tell you that things like calling handicapped people "differently abled" is a way to have them "own" their situation, I can tell you where it actually leads. I am even willing to accept the good intentions of these PC people. But, "the path to Hell is paved in good intentions." Because what it sets up, is a certain vocabulary of "accepted speech." Because to buy into the PC term du jour, you have to buy into its foundation, which is essentially that no one should be made to feel uncomfortable or offended or insulted, ever, for any reason. Not for their race, religion, career, social status, sex, sexual orientation, physical disability, political views, etc. etc. I am not saying go out on the street and start throwing gratuitous slurs and insults towards people. But the idea that everyone should be shield from uncomfortable or confrontational speech, is basically the antithesis of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, which-- at least at one point-- were considered in this country foundational, fundamental human rights. And how far down the road of unaccepted speech will it go? At what point is "bad" speech not just calling someone the "N" word, or a "slut," a "wop," "fag," and into absurdities like, you can't call someone fat or even "big" (even if they are objectively overweight) because that word has a negative connotation. Or "short," even if it is objectively true, because that has a negative connotation? Or "poor?" You see where I am going with this? It becomes absurd, to the point where we can't express anything disagreeable at all. Which is unnatural. And turns into a situation that is a lie. Like that episode of the Twilight Zone where the whole town always has to say creepily positive things or this demon kid will kill them with ESP. People --humans-- have a range of emotions, anger and calm, love and hate, passion and collective contemplation. And to be truly free, humans need to be able to express these things (obviously, not in wildly inappropriate ways, like beating the crap out of someone or shooting them). But forgive me for being contrarian, but I do not think there is anything fundamentally wrong with given someone a good, old-fashioned, possibly insulting bitch-out, if needed. It is part of what makes us human. Deny us one half of our emotions, and we lose part of our humanity.Or what about political speech? Go too far down the road of the idea of "accepted speech" and "unaccepted speech" in politics, and, well, I hope you enjoy going to "Dear Leader" rallies and goose-stepping.

5. "Being green;" aka, OMFG CLIMATE CHANGE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! Quick, let's go back to living in trees. I am not one of those people who will categorically deny that climate change is happening. I also will not categorically accept it as gospel truth. Because I am not a scientist, I haven't done any tests, I haven't done the studies, I wouldn't know how to do the research. But, I feel the subject is so politicized, and everyone has some kind of ideological axe to grind, it is really hard to trust studies-- on either side, yay or nay, as objectively truthful. But, in the end, it doesn't matter. Perhaps this is more nihilist than iconoclast, but the climate is going to change eventually. Hotter or colder, it doesn't matter. It was going to happen. And if humans are contributing, we are only speeding up the inevitable. So why are we running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure out how to make our lives less enjoyable for the sake of the "environment." I don't think we should allow the planet to turn into a toxic waste dump, because I enjoy, um, breathing. But, c'mon California. Banning fireplaces? People have been burning wood for millennia. This is not the cause of our problems, such as they are. And fireplaces make life more enjoyable. I know! We should make people buy "Carbon credits" for breathing, since breathing produces greenhouse gasses. And there are almost 7 billion of us on the planet. That's a lot of CO2. And what about the animals? They all breathe. And there are a hell of a lot more of them than us. We should tax them, too. I kind of liken it to one of my other personal life philosophies: I would rather live to 70 living an enjoyable if not entirely healthy lifestyle, than live to 90 by eating leaves and exercising 4 hours a day. Life's short, life's tough, we have but a moment on this Earth, why sweat the things we cannot control, and stop denying ourselves the petty, small enjoyable things?

Well, by now I have probably upset or worried or pissed off whoever is reading this in at least one way. My apologizes. No, I am not depressed. I actually quite like bopping around this Earth; I just wish it could be more on my own terms. Perhaps I have just picked up too much philosophy in my education, and in my overly-introspective mind, have used that to turn what I see into, "all the ways by which people put themselves into boxes, either individually or collectively." If you couldn't tell, I am much more of an individualist than a collectivist.

Well, now that I have told you more of my world-view than you ever needed to know, I must retire as I have work tomorrow. A work, by the way, that I quite enjoy. I am actually having a bang-up time in NYC; I don't want to leave. This is not a screed of, "life sucks," so much as a, "how could life be better?" Didn't Socrates say something about the unexamined life?

Goodnight all, and I hope you days are filled with true choice and freedom.

Soap Box No. 1

I am not a fan of the fact that it is 11:30 pm already. Somehow, my days are getting skewed later, unintentionally. Oh well.

Anyway, not much to report this evening life-wise. Finished my 3rd of 4 finals. Today was technically the last day of finals, but because of my strep-tastic week last week, which precluded much studying, the law school gods (aka, the Dean of Students) took pity on me and is letting me finish my last exam on Monday. Of which I am super appreciative.

I'd like to say that by Tuesday I'll be done and done with 1L (good bye and good riddance-- even for people not having law school/life crisis, 1L basically sucks. It is a universal truism), but alas this is not really the case. Because we still have the journal writing competition for another week. Whee! And it goes on and on and on...

Today's post is "Soap box," because it is essentially a round up on things I have read, and with which I have either strongly agreed or disagreed. I spend a lot of time on the internet reading articles, and I have "big feelings" about certain things, in the words of my boyfriend. Since a lot of the point of this blog is an outlet to air my thoughts, and to chronicle how I relate to the adult world, from time to time I will take space to comment on certain things I have read.

[To read the article I reference, just copy-paste link into browser. Would take too much space to copy everything here].

1. http://thefire.org/article/14449.html

I am not going to say much about this, because there is not much I could add, except that I agree 110%. One thing you should know about me: I believe in a very broad, very liberal application of free speech. A very close to unrestricted free speech. And I believe that free speech-- as right-- is not something one should only be protected from in terms of the government. If something is a fundamental right-- as we generally conceive those thing codified in the Bill of Rights to be-- then it shouldn't matter who is violating your right or not. What these schools are doing, is wrong. Plain and simple. Free speech wasn't invented so everyone would be nice and courteous to each other all the time. Free speech wasn't invented so people would be shielded from offense, unpleasant discourse, or discomfort. Free speech wasn't invented, so that the only thing a person can openly say or do, is what is "socially accepted" in the area in which that person operates. This is basically, in a nutshell, why I absolutely hate, HATE "political correctness." Other than the fact that reduces what could otherwise be pointed discourse into meaningless drivel, it goes against the very concept of freedom of speech and expression. And to rebut some of the arguments I know people will make: colleges, even private colleges, receive significant federal money from a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons. They are more like quasi-public entities more than anything else. Thus, the same strictures against government intrusion on free speech, should apply to private colleges as well. And no, the types of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States, for those of you not versed in law school note-taking slang) decisions upholding restrictions of speech and expression at school, are only operative at the high school and lower levels, not at the college level.

2. http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/teen-girl-petitions-seventeen-magazine-stop-airbrushing-models-130000558.html

I readily admit, the airbrushing and stuff done in popular media, is stupid. It is totally fake and, to be honest, I don't actually think it produces a standard of "beauty" that is particularly attractive in the real world, where all angular bodily shapes have not been air-brushed into soft curves. In real life, people who are as skinny or whatever as the models in magazines, are kind of emaciated and pained looking. Like, I don't think the "I-just-got-out-of-the-Gulag" look is particularly attractive. I admit that for a while, when I was in my early teens, I got caught up in the whole "painfully-thin is in" mentality. But then something happened: I got self-esteem, and self-confidence. I stopped caring what other people thought, or how they would or would not judge me, because I was able to get validation from within, from what I did and accomplished as a person. I did not need it from without. Conforming stopped mattering. And so, I think there is the bigger issue here. The big issue is that so many teens and young adults lack self-confidence, lack the "etre dans son peau" as the French would say, that they so desperately need their worth validated by how much they resemble the opinion of popular culture. That they look to pop culture magazines to measure their self-worth, is profoundly sad. I readily admit that I could stand to lose a few pounds and get back into shape, but this is because I generally feel better and more energized with a few pounds off, not because I want to slip into a size 0. So instead of protesting Seventeen magazine, perhaps this young girl should really be getting to the heart of matter, and encouraging girls to get their self-validation from something more meaningful and less shallow.

3. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-campaigns-julia-draws-partisan-debate-191929780--abc-news-politics.html

That stupid crap like this is what passes for important election information, or is something that the campaigns are spending so much time snipping back and forth over, is indicative of why politics in this country is in shambles. I know, instead of debating rationally the issues and platforms of each side, let's have a cat fight in the media over some stupid, fake graphic thing of a hypothetical woman that one of the campaigns decided to create! Now there's some substance for you. The more I read the news, the more I see that politics is less and less about actual ideas, plans and results, and more about sound bites. I fear for the future.

4. http://news.yahoo.com/book-names-iconic-times-square-kissing-couple-world-215724993--abc-news-topstories.html

I have always loved this picture. Sometimes I wish I could have been part of the "greatest generation." Sometimes I wonder if WWII happened today, if my generation or the current younger generations (X, Y) could have pulled the same thing off-- if we could do what had to be done, messy as it may be, instead of wasting time and lives publicly debating the merits of, idk, the strategic bombing of Germany. When I was in France with my family at age 18, visiting the beaches at Normandy (where my dad's father landed at D-Day), we visited this little town. I heard (and saw the evidence of) the most amazing story: there was this old stone church; on the inside of it, we could see old bullet holes in the walls, some broken glass, and dark stains on the wood benches (which I later learned was 60 year old blood). Around the time of D-Day, there had been a big battle in the fields around the town, between the Allies and the Germans who had control of the area. These two American kids-- I think one was 17 or 18, the other 19 or 20-- were part of the "medic" team, although their "medical" training amounted to a few crash-course weeks in boot camp. During the fiercest of the fighting, one of the kids would take an old wheelbarrow, and run out into the field and collect the wounded, and bring them back to this church, where the other kid would work to sew up, dress, clean and treat the wounded as he could. Injured guys were laid out all over the pews, hence the blood stains. The kid kept going out and bringing them in, the other kid kept fixing them as he could, all while stray bullets and the like were whizzing past, into the walls and glass of the church. I believe the guide told us that the kids also didn't discriminate against the wounded-- they brought Germans as well as Americans into the church. I think the guide told us that once the Germans figured this out, the stopped shooting at the runner, so he was able to pick up more people. I don't remember how many people they were able to bring into the church, but I remember it being a lot.

The guys pulling this off were literally kids-- barely into adulthood; the one kid may not have even reached majority yet. As the time, they were my contemporaries, or a little older. Now, they were younger than me, by several years. And yet they pulled off more in the time span of a battle, than I will probably ever pull off in my life. They had to be more brave, than I will probably ever have to be.

I wonder how many people my own age these days, could do what they did. Or how many essentially high schoolers, could do what they did. I don't discount the contributions of our current service members-- they have to do stuff like this every day and more. But because we are a volunteer system, that is only a small segment of the population. Most people these days don't and won't have to face these situations. WWII required epically more participation in the fighting by young men. And even those at home had to sacrifice, if we were going to definitively win the damn thing. Could that many of us pull together, and get it done? Within a year or so after 9/11, after a truly amazing display of national unity in the aftermath of a true tragedy, we were back to the old bickering and polarized partisan BS. My opinion is, that we have had such difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, because we try to conduct our wars to "please all the people all the time"-- namely, so the war and its reality doesn't put anyone out, offend or inconvenience those on the home front. And thus people spend so much time bickering about what should and should not be done. I grant that the Iraq war, conceptually, had "issues." But I don't think anyone except really out-there people could plausibly claim that the Afghan war was without cause. But too much of the war is conducted to please the masses, conscious of its "image" in the presses, which IMHO does a disservice: first, it cripples our ability to win a war decisively and second, and worst, it thus causes it to drag on, wasting American as well as civilian lives. The younger generations are so worried about feeling morally superior, so wrapped up in their own perceptions, that they allow wars to be dragged down and down, taking those fighting and those whose lives are being disrupted, down with them. Given this, could we really fight WWII today? Or would we all be speaking German and/or Japanese?

5. http://www.cracked.com/article_19483_5-birds-with-abilities-that-put-superheroes-to-shame_p2.html

Whoa. Birds are scary as shit, yo. Especially the owl. Holy crap. It's like, nature's version of a predator drone meets a stealth bomber. Remind me to never be a rodent. Also, the Lyre bird? Ah-mazing. That's totally nuts. Isn't it interesting that nature has been able to do things in so-called "lower" life forms, that it has taken idk, 5,000 years of technology and 30,000 years of brain development for humanity to reproduce? Finally, I wonder if this means that you could in theory reverse-engineer an Ostrich's DNA, to recreate a T-Rex. Although, why would you want to?

6. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/al-qaida-letter-seized-bin-laden-compound-fox-154510302.html

This has got to be the worst insult, like, ever. The whole crux of a major terror plot, hinges its ultimate success/desired results, on the fact that the people planning it, think you utterly suck at your job. Ouch. Sucks to be Joe Biden today. I don't know why everyone hates on Biden so much. I mean, he's kind of innocuous. Like, he's just kind of... there. But again, maybe that's the point. Honestly, people make fun of Biden's verbal gaffes and "dirty" mouth, but I think there should be more "F" bombs in politics. Seriously. It would make politics more "real," people relating to each other on a more "human" level, rather than people putting on aires and politicking and all that crap all the time. Politics, I think, would actually be helped by people relating to each other, and discussing things, like actual people...

Also, LOL Fox News...

Well that's all for tonight. Now I have to do the damn dishes. I feel like I am always doing the dishes. That and homework. Alas.