Sometimes Free Speech Hurts

[Originally posted to The Antioch Voice June 19, 2012.] The Antioch Voice will always be a diverse publication. We would do Antioch a disservice if we offered anything less than the heart and soul of her members. At the same time, the Voice staff is guided by First Amendment principles, so we understand that our freedoms have certain reasonable limitations. We exist to investigate truths and to create perspectives for our readers. Libel and slander have no place in our pages.

With that said, our editorial considerations end with doing no harm. We’re Antiochians, remember. We love to push boundaries and challenge the status quo whenever we can. Because we ALSO recognize the difference between inflicting harm in society and eliciting uncomfortable reactions in our readers.

Making Peace

Writing about peace was a conflict in itself for me. See, writers are not exactly known for our serene connections to the world. Many of us relate to peace like a nutty professor stalks a cure. And when you factor in the scarcity of peace from which to draw inspiration, the result is a frustrated and highly caffeinated soul. I’m forced to make it up as I go. 

Oh sure, I find peace in small doses, like in the laughter of children or a sunrise on the meadow, but never the long lasting, cross boundary peace I’ve read so much about in dictionaries. No harmony among all peoples. No freedom from violence and strife. Instead, I read about war and apartheid and Third World conditions. Threats of nuclear annihalation. Pirates roaming our international waters. 

The atmosphere in America is somewhat muted (though everyone I know is packing heat these days). I can see another element at work, a human element that aggravates our situation. Enforced civility and political correctness. Conversations edited for content and time. Plenty of tension below the surface, yet the expectation is to hold all that tension inside. It’s like we believe peace is achieved only through peaceful methods, as if the goal is to avoid conflict of any kind. 

In fact, we want peace so badly, we settle for immediate peace-like substitutes. We lose sight of larger, cross-personal goals by pursuing our own peace of mind. It’s a bunch of ego-fluffing nonsense and it gets us nowhere. Conflict can produce amazing results if channeled properly and people are open to it. But that means we must ask those uncomfortable questions. We must challenge harmful beliefs. We must be willing to offend others. 

Most important, we must find the courage to endure our own difficult thoughts and feelings. When I hear people discussing peace, they point outside themselves to explain how the world should be different. Lots of great ideas, but their solutions usually favor themselves. It’s much different to say that our problems begin in each one of us, individually, because of our perspective on things, our expectations, our personal needs. The more we recognize that fact, the more we break free from our selves and realize our true potential. 

I believe this phenomenon spreads when it finds purchase in enough individuals. Think of how a work atmosphere would improve if people felt safe to give and receive criticism about their job or coworkers. And if they’re being really honest with themselves, think of how many people might find their “perfect job” sooner. 

Consider the power of the American electorate if we could admit how vulnerable we are to political spin and white-washed explanations. Not because we’re stupid, but because we’re human. We can’t know everything all the time. If we would embrace that weakness, I believe we would put more effort into finding out for ourselves and less faith in politicians. Our voting percentages would skyrocket. 

Can we broaden this topic internationally? Imagine how different the conflict between Israel and Palestine would be if the rest of us demanded they find terms other than religious ones to negotiate on… since those will never coincide. Does that sound shortsighted of me? Only because we deem it acceptable to threaten global security over possession of religious property. Imagine how every religious conflict might vanish if we would remind religious people that no man speaks for God. 

There are numerous other conflicts out there to illustrate my point, and they all boil down to people struggling to manage their inner realities. The best way to achieve a long-lasting peace would be to teach every one of us to make peace from within. I dare say it’s the only way.

Submitted for “Writers for Peace” 

Antioch University Midwest, 2011

Limit Breaker!

I’ve taken a slow but deliberate step back from other people in recent years. My brain was approaching critical mass... again. Not the first time. I'm still politely social. I still go to work and the gym and the grocery. Otherwise, I'm not in the mood for other people. There's a particular dimension of human behavior at work in some people that, until recently, has eluded me. But at last, I'm gaining clarity on it and myself.

I guess I’ve always known about it in some form or another. I’ve been attracted to it, mesmerized by it, and compelled to argue with it. I’m talking about those who perceive and interpret the world in terms of themselves. They cannot relate to a thing unless they project themselves on it somehow. They treat people as means to various ends. 

It’s not in everyone, mind you, at least not in concentrated form. But, the more aware I become of it, the more I see of it. I've heard it called egocentrism, self-centeredness, even Narcissistic Personality Disorder in extreme cases. But I’ve opted for ease and aesthetics by calling it psychic vampirism; people who feed on the psychic energy of others in order to sustain themselves in a social environment. 

And since that name contains spooky, supernatural terms, let’s get real specific here. ‘Vampire’ implies someone who drains others of their essence, and ‘psychic’ points to the mental and emotional dimension of human experience; those inner states of being that are wholly our own. Psychic vamps don’t suck blood, nor do they leech us of material possessions or money. In fact, the self-absorbed are very good at buying or giving stuff, or paying one’s way, or designated driving. But these are superficial methods to entice others closer in order to feed off their minds and hearts. 

They drain us without reciprocating those same basic needs for love and attention, care, interest, meaningful conversations. Psychic vampires are incapable of those things, I think. They manage to put on a good show. Hell, some of them will even ask you how your day was. But listen closely. What they're really doing is setting up the conversation to talk about another aspect of themselves. It sounds a little like: “How was your day? Oh really, because I’m exhausted from work, and here are a few reasons why, blah and blah. Ultimately I discovered a new recipe for chicken cashew while on the internet. You know, I’ve saved money and kept slim by cooking at home. Do you read Cosmo?” And on and on, never noticing they've hijacked the conversation for their perverse and ongoing personal display. 

Psychic vampires also have problems that are so massive, they require multiple people to help and provide support. Or at least that's how they explain them. Every friend and family member has a part to play. God help anyone that doesn't fall in line. But strangely, when you try to lean on vamps in the same way, they aren’t there. They cannot be there for you. In fact, they brush you off with a cold indifference and redirect the conversation to them. Big surprise. 

Such attention to one’s self is natural on occasion. It helps our survival if we take stock on occasion. It boosts our morale to tell others of our accomplishments, and helps us shoulder problems when others listen. It’s part of maintaining healthy relationships among fellow human beings. But we’re not talking occasional. Psychic vampires literally nest in their relationships. They pad themselves with the warmth and attention of other people. 

By now, I’m sure you’re shaking your head slowly, saying to yourself, “That boy’s been hurt.” And you’d be right. I grew up meeting the needs of other people FIRST in order to get my own needs met. In fact, I managed my loved ones like circus animals on parade because, really, that’s what they were. They were too busy meeting their own needs to stop and help me with mine. Throughout my life, I found myself attracted to similar people in social and personal circles. We reciprocated materially, but there was another dimension to the relationships that psychic vampires couldn’t share with me. 

I’ve had to learn this the hard way, slogging through years of my own self-loathing, hiding beneath any number of friends and romantic interests that would expect me to handle them, to care for them, ask about them, admire them, and in return, they would let me bask in their splendor I suppose. It’s exhausting, not to mention demeaning in subconscious ways. And the hardest part is that I move toward that, again and again, allowing it to drain me of psychic resources until I can’t bare it any longer. Then I retreat. 

This time, however, I’m not going to be a victim about all this. Sure, I’ve ranted for a few paragraphs, but ultimately I’ve cultivated an awareness of psychic vampires because I’m susceptible to them. I’m a ‘giver,’ or someone who ‘copes,’ or some might say a ‘controller.’ I bring this upon myself, and I’m ready to take some responsibility. 

So, instead of hating them, I’ve become vigilant about psychic vampires. It may take me a while, but I can spot them now based on their tendencies. I realize they probably don’t see what they’re doing. That doesn’t make the behavior any less harmful to me. In fact, it makes it worse since I wind up arguing with them about an unknown variable. How do you discuss matters of perception with people who won’t step out of theirs? You can’t win. 

Besides, it’s high time I started thinking of MY needs. I've started to weigh every relationship in my life these days to determine whether that person gives whatever they take from me psychically. And if they don’t, then I disconnect myself from them. Politely. And if that sounds catty, so be it. If I have to accept a lack of awareness in others as part of their being human, then they have to accept my lack of patience for that same reason.

HAGDOM

While speaking with friends the other day, I realized how many people in the heterosexual community still do not understand the complex relationship between a fag and his female counterpart. You've probably witnessed countless examples of these two together, especially while at the mall or other comfort stops. This is no small thing, people... worlds turn on such intricate social networks. You might say that special give and take between gay men and straight women helps to balance the whole equation for human beings. For now anyway.

But of course, like all things human, the gay / girl dynamic has gradations to it depending on the people involved. And here's where the confusion comes in I think, because gay stereotypes are well known and shattered occasionally, but the women involved are still clumped together as one generic heterosexual group. The reality is far different:

the fruit fly = this woman has an unnatural attraction to gay men (and by unnatural, I mean sexual attraction that will never be fulfilled, no matter how much liquor is involved). Fruit flies often buzz their way through big city club scenes, hoping to find that sensitive, caring, and well groomed individual who listens to them... with a penis. You may hear one laughing about the whole "gay thing", knowing in her heart that all gay men really need is the right woman to come along. INDICATOR: multiple visits to a hair stylist per month, resulting in overworked color or perms.

the fag hag = god bless this lady of the evening. She is any woman who shouts, "Fuck you men! And your unrealistic expectations of women!!" Girl, you know them ol' gay boys are gonna hang with you, so come on over. They refer to the gays as "the funnest people to be around," which roughly translates to "guys I don't have to shave or wear makeup around." A little known fact, the first fart on record by a female occurred while in the soothing and non-judgmental presence of gay males. INDICATOR: at least one junk food item somewhere on their person (or in their car).

the flame dame = gay men flock to this powerful woman. And the chances are good that heterosexual men try to get at her as well. Flame dames are usually well composed, confident, and most important, never overly dependent on men. In general or specific. More than anything, gay men act as shielding for the flame dame, repelling straight men in the heat of their cruising. INDICATOR: spontaneous house party on a Saturday night followed by spontaneous clean up afterward.

the homo honey = after serving a number of years within the Homosexual Agenda, any woman will have tolerated more than her fair share of drama, heartache, and self-loathing from her gay counterpart(s). She thus becomes eligible for the homo honeys. The many perks of this select group include access to a clothing and style advisory board, a 30% discount at any Lane Bryant store, and a lifetime of respect and admiration. INDICATOR: repeated requests from gay men to get the phone numbers of other gay men. BONUS INDICATOR: membership in the "Purse of the Month Club".

Again, stereotypes are shattered daily, so no angry comments. These are mere parameters, and half hearted ones at that. For the real story inside Hagdom, ladies will just have to support their local gay man and see for themselves. Live the adventure!

(Note: this program is not available for college credit.)

MONKEYSHINE

The New York Post just released a FORMAL APOLOGY for offending some of its viewers. It's a response to the outrage over a cartoon associating the stimulus bill with a dead monkey. People everywhere exploded about this, suggesting it was thinly veiled racism targeting a black president.

I really didn’t see it, or wasn’t looking for it anyway. I surf the web absently for news while I’m on the phone, so when this came up I clicked the cartoon instead of reading the story. I immediately associated the stimulus bill with the recent shooting of a monkey gone wild. I felt it timely but not very funny… I love animals, even the rabid ones (at a distance).

But by the afternoon, this story ballooned to Al Sharpton proportions. I only saw what all the fuss was about after I paid attention. I guess the House and Senate fought over the stimulus bill so hard that I stopped associating it directly with Barack Obama. I mean the guy had to use some star power just to get the damn thing passed.

Please don’t misunderstand; my dissent in no way extends to the protestors or their issue with the image. I fully acknowledge the racial slurs passed between white and black people through our shared history. But I felt my initial experience of the cartoon was telling, so I wanted to get it out there. I just didn’t see the racist implications at first, and I’m sorry so many other people did.

GOOD GRIEF

For many of us, winter is a season of long suffering. The Earth insists on traveling far from our sun, even though it’s been out that way enough times to know what to expect. Because of this planetary wanderlust, we the little people must endure months of itchy clothing, excessive spending, runny noses, unwanted pounds of body fat, and a host of well intentioned but often stressful holiday gatherings with our in-laws.

Fortunately, such misery affords me a chance to wax existential. I’ve been meaning to discuss the nature suffering for a while now, but I’ve been too busy enjoying myself. Now that cold weather has settled in, I feel sufficiently depressed and thus in tune with the issue at hand. And suffering is certainly at hand for each of us, at least some of the time.

I don’t have to see into every mind to know this is true. The evidence can be found in the various ways we try to avoid or alleviate it from our lives. Addictions of every kind permeate our culture. Illegal drugs continue to prosper despite the number of wars we wage against them. We have a booming pharmaceutical industry because we insist on treating everything from cancer to a small penis with pills and potions. Health crazes have moved into the realm of legislation. Merchandizing depends on a self loathing they help to create. I could go on (and have in past entries ... why do I like lists so much?)

Many think of sickness, pain, starvation, or loss when they hear the word suffering, but these are merely the conditions which bring it about. You aren’t suffering illness; you are suffering FROM an illness. You don’t suffer hardship; you suffer THROUGH hardship in order to gain something. And while we do “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”, we only say it that way because an Englishman decided it would sound fancy. The very same writer prefaced those famous words by suggesting “’tis nobler in the mind ...” (See? More lists!)

Believe it or not, suffering is merely a state of mind. When something happens to us, our brains decide how we should feel about it. Grief is just one of those ways of feeling. Bliss is another, and we all know we can’t purchase a pound of it to take home. Instead, we buy a pound of double fudge brownies and hope that bliss will arise as we gorge ourselves.

It may seem hopeless to view suffering in this way. There are so many catalysts for it, how can we ever cope with them all? By realizing what they all have in common: desire. It was the Buddha who first suggested that desire is the root of all suffering. We suffer because our needs and expectations aren’t being met.

Of course, Buddhists also suggest we let go of desire entirely and accept things as they are. This solution annoys me, and not just because it’s something other than what I want to hear. Desire has motivated every step in our evolution thus far, and I see no reason why it should stop. Sure it creates dictators and stalkers, but it also fosters discovery and the bonds people share.

We can never avoid all suffering in our lives, nor should we hope to. Conflict has the potential to bring about great change, even when it happens inside of us. For example, we suffer when we catch the flu, but our bodies eventually build up immunity to it, thereby making us stronger in the long run. Trying to avoid the inevitable will just bring about more suffering, which is what you’re trying to avoid in the first place!

My solution is awareness, nothing more. Desire itself is an addiction, one which we try and feed whenever possible. On the off chance that we actually get what we want, we get a rush of satisfaction or happiness that demands repeating. If we recognize that we don’t always get what we want, we may move past the suffering and begin to learn from what’s going on. The universe does not cater to our every need. In fact, it has needs of its own which include our occasional dissatisfaction. Otherwise, how would things get done?

The awareness I speak of would reveal how frivolous most of our suffering is. We aren’t angry because we’re stuck in traffic, rather because we don’t want to be in traffic, or we have things which need to get done. We don’t grieve because someone died, but because we want them alive and with us again. We don’t suffer because we have less than perfect bodies, but because we want the attention and sexy playmates that such bodies will bring us. (List!) All of it is relevant to our perspective.

Remember this as you dig your car out from under large drifts of snow. Your unhappiness is not so much at what is, rather at what you want it to be. And when you realize this, at least some of the time you can let go and get on with things.

MOORE BIAS

I went to see Michael Moore’s new movie SiCKO for the second time. It’s a two hours flick, maybe longer, so there was plenty of stuff I missed the first time through. If you haven’t seen it yet, do so … right now. I can wait ... …

… and you’re back. What did you think? I felt it made a lot of great points and even schooled Americans on what a democracy is (or is supposed to be). I’ve read through some critiques and had numerous conversations on the issues expressed. But at this point, the movie isn’t what I’m interested in discussing. Instead, I’d like to touch on the reputation of Michael Moore.

He’s one of those cultural figures that seem to induce strong feelings or ideals automatically. When I see Moore on commercials or in the news, I associate him with passionate, radical thinking akin to gonzo journalism (without all the drugs). Many others instantly demonize him as the golden child of liberal media bias. We either love him or hate him. I have yet to hear an apathetic comment on anything he’s done.

What truly solidifies Moore’s credentials in my mind is his willingness to debate what he produces. For example, former senator Fred Thompson attacked him for creating SiCKO even before it had a chance to screen. Moore’s response was a challenge, inviting Thompson to an open debate on our nation’s health care and, further, his countless campaign contributions by the health care industry. The response was typical: “I’ve been looking at my schedule, Michael, and I don’t think I have time for you.” Keep in mind this was said while Thompson lounged casually in an easy chair sucking at a Montecristo.

Another example is with an author of the Michael Moore hate site MOOREWATCH. JimK was about to shut the site down because of personal and financial issues, and posted as much for people to read. Moore’s response was not vindictive or triumphant; he actually supplied the man with the necessary funds to keep his life on track and thus to keep the site going. To this day, JimK continues to bash Moore, even though he acknowledges the assistance given.

I’m sorry, but anyone who places real money down to secure the existence of an opposing perspective deserves much respect and consideration. Moore may not be right on everything (who among us can be?), but he shows tremendous security in his own views. So much so that he PUBLICLY welcomes the chance to be wrong about what he thinks. That’s my point.

I am wary of anyone who simply puts the opinions of others down without every making their own opposing views available for scrutiny. These folks are guided by one (or all) of three possible motives: (a) they don’t really believe what they believe; (b) they believe without much evidence; (c) they have a vested interest in something that is currently being challenged.

Their tactics are usually to demonize their detractors, discrediting them with the hopes of silencing further argumentation. They feel this somehow safeguards their beliefs, when really it shows a tender spot in their thinking. They are not interested in discovering truth; they are interested in appearing right. The two are not the same. (Wow, I think I pierced the heart of political discourse … bonus!)

I recognize there are people out there who DO take in different perspectives in order to find their own. I applaud you. But there are many more who knee jerk for whatever reason, which doesn’t serve any purpose other than to stroke their own egos. It’s quite possible they’ve adopted a view which was fed to them by the media, which makes them just as guilty as Moore’s audience.

If we don’t agree with what Michael Moore says, can we at least agree that he opens doorways to more moderate thinking? Can we recognize that voices such as his, while extreme, help people solidify their own positions on matters of tremendous significance? And most importantly, if we feel we are being lied to or deceived, can we start defending why we think that instead of attacking others? Here’s hoping …

A RIGHT TO BROWN LUNGS

With all of the problems Ohioans face going into the midterm elections (corrupt government officials, questionable voting procedures, lackluster education for our children, the loss of many jobs and, as a result, the emigration of our younger generations) we’ve decided one of our biggest issues should be about smoking in public places. Now if I was a conspiratorially minded individual (and I am), I might suggest this is a clever way to get us angry at one another, thus taking some of the blame from where it truly belongs, to those whom WE PAY to keep some semblance of order and cooperation to society. The ol’ divide and conquer. Whatever, I can play along.

However, before I rip this issue apart, let me get on the record for saying I realize cigarette smoking is unhealthy and potentially deadly for those with a family history of lung cancer, emphysema, and heart problems. There is no debate in that area. But all of these possibilities fall squarely in the physical dimensions of smoking. They include chemical dependency (craving a smoke) and reactions by the body to the chemicals ingested (disease/cancer).

There is more to smoking than the physical (as with all things having to do with people). There is a neuro-chemical dependency present as well, one familiar to all compulsions. In this neuro-chemical realm (let us call it the mental dimensions) we find not only a change in brain “juices” but also a changing of neural pathways used to perceive the world, make decisions, and have needs and demands met. It is a conditioning of our minds to seek a quick fix in the midst of immediate stress, loneliness, even boredom. Addiction is a process that must be unlearned; it is not just an aspect of a person that can be chopped off.

And smoking is definitely an addiction, considering most everyone on the planet has been crammed full of good advice about how it’s bad for you. If I’m feeling cocky, I shoot back with “holy crap, really? When did this happen??” It’s got bite, I’ll admit, but it leaves the “well intentioned” person feeling sheepish; like holding up a mirror, revealing their actions in the moment. And yes, sometimes I’m a bitch. It definitely illustrates the frustrations many smokers feel when they are asked to stop doing what they do habitually. It’s like expecting others to eat only healthy foods all the time. You know it’s a healthful way of living, yet you don’t have time for that, you like the taste, you perceive junk food as indulgence outright.

Bottom line: bullying people who are stressed out enough to smoke cancer does not always work. When someone engages in behavior compulsively, the last thing they need is the negativity that comes from being preached at. They need subtle support.

With this in mind, let us now discuss the two motions on the Ohio ballet this year involving smoking legislation. Issue 4 seeks to amend our state constitution, banning cigarette smoke in public places statewide unless that place makes 40%+ of their sales from alcohol (hmm, the two seem to go hand in hand don’t they?) Of course, any establishment can still cater to both smokers and non-smokers provided they are physically separated by walls with doors that close. Issue 5 seeks to ban public smoking by law. It’s still unclear to me whether this includes parts of the outdoors.

I will be voting yes on issue 4 and no to 5. Issue 4 says “yes, we get it, smoking is bad and you don’t want to be exposed to it. We will go into another room or stay away from certain establishments.” It is a way for those who smoke to concede to this terribly one-sided crusade on well being and health. It allows us to admit we don’t care if we have to move to another room.

My problem with issue 5 is two-fold. First, and of the utmost importance, is that NO ban on smoking cigarettes, whether by segregation or by law, will greatly improve the quality of air that we breath. Here’s a fun fact: buildings DO NOT generate their own air in order for patrons to breathe. Air is a blanket that permeates most all of our “public places”; it’s the same air that is filled with gasoline fumes, factory smoke, and natural pollutants. Cigarette smoking merely adds to the problem.

Second, the REAL problem of our air quality goes sorely unaddressed when we look only to smoking in public places. The largest contributor to the crap floating through the air is the burning of fossil fuels, in particular from (you guessed it) the automobile. Nowadays, even our more rural areas hold emissions testing at 45% of total pollutants; at best, cigarette smoking accounts for 10%, and that’s in areas where smokers are gathered. If we are TRULY concerned about health here, such high percentages from our automobiles should enrage us! Yet … we as a nation drive shamelessly. We are proud of it.

I’m sorry, there is no logical basis for what is going to be voted on November 7th, and that includes both issues 4 and 5. It will not solve the problems brought up; only add a bunch of crazy, nicotine-deficient citizens into an already cross eyed culture. Remember this as you cruise the streets in your jacked out rides. And consider, if humans can’t let go of our dependence on cars and trucks, why should some of us let go of smoking?

IT'S AN EMBRYO, NOT A FETUS

On Wednesday, our most powerful and magnanimous potentate King George vetoed a bill passed by the United States Congress entitled “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”. I’m hoping none of you missed this issue in the midst of the brink on the cusp of a possible world WAR!!! If nothing else we have a shining example of the perspective of our president.

These are Fundamentalist beliefs bearing down on us all. What else can an “extreme” conservative point of view be but rigidly religious? I want us not to forget this initial point, for I will return to it after I speak my mind about the topic itself.

To suggest this bill “would support the taking of human life” draws from the audience a knee jerk reaction. Most of us are peaceful, so that such a phrase brings to mind butchery and murder. Really, most of us lack a full conception of our own lives, let alone Life in its almost infinite forms. Life comes in so many shapes and varieties you LITERALLY cannot walk very far without squashing it. As far as I know, it can be as vast as the ocean, or as small as the crud growing in the cracks of my bathtub. It can be comprised of a single cell, or of many systems and organs, all living, many containing living things of their own, working in tandem to create the illusion of a single being.

But we are not talking about any ol’ life forms now are we? The research is directly related to fertilized embryos, which are the beginnings of human beings. And we’re all human beings, and we wouldn’t want our lives taken from us now would we? We the voters and the votees alike associate such feelings to the issue, completely mucking the whole thing. Supporting any government funding that would “take human life” is all of a sudden extremely personal and threatening. I’m sorry, I can see no possible justification to suppress scientific research while at the same time supporting the death penalty and war. Each has it’s own value in certain situations. There is no moral boundary being crossed.

Like other complex organisms, humans go through stages of development. This is why we have different words involved with pregnancy, words like sperm and egg, embryo, and fetus. A zygote is produced at conception and can spend up to two weeks traveling down the tubes toward the uterus. Once it plants itself it does nothing but divide in cells, some of which form the placenta and a larger portion producing an embryo. For the next six weeks, an embryo works overtime dividing its cells until it somewhat resembles a baby. We’ve all seen pictures of them, looking alien with no eyelids, the faintest hint of fingers or toes. There isn’t much brain there, more a mass of cells that have been chosen to be the brain very soon.

At month three, it is no longer considered an embryo; it has made it to the fetus stage. The difference becomes greater each passing week for that particular life. Cells chosen for various organs or anatomical pieces have begun to knit themselves together. Entire systems not only exist but begin their function. Fingernails and sexual organs and nipples and movement are noticeable. The nervous system begins to weave itself around bone and tissue, giving us the information highway we use to experience the world outside of us.

This distinction between embryo and fetus is NO ACCIDENT. They are stages of development with their own purpose and goals. An embryo is replicating stem cells as generic building blocks, and then distributing these in various places for its genetic code to shape. It is true that toward the end of the two month embryonic cycle some humanity can be seen (a beating heart for example). But most embryos that have been frozen for use in scientific study are NOT that far along in their development, nor would they be of any use if those stem cells were already transformed into heart or brain tissue. The open ended “stem” would be gone from those cells.

So exactly how should we define life? Many scholarly opinions differ as to when we are fully ourselves, an individual being. Some suggest the fetal stage is when we are ourselves, because during this time we start to use our nervous systems and can feel things like pain or discomfort. Nearly all agree that third trimester is absolutely human, and you will find no doctor that will perform an abortion on these. I have even read opinions that suggest newborn babies are not yet fully human, since they lack the capacity to even comprehend spatial reality, move on their own, or protect their sensitive head region as it solidifies. This doesn’t devalue newborns; it heightens a need to protect them until they mature into a tougher version of childhood.

And then there’s the religious opinion (see, I knew we’d get back to it). Life begins at conception to these people, and in certain ways they are right. A newly developed embryo is alive, but so is a plant, a virus, and a patch of mildew. I don’t think the opinion is based on what the embryo actually is, rather it is rooted in the will of their God. Pregnancy doesn’t just happen. God is the architect of our existence on this earth, so naturally we should honor his creation. I’ll reiterate … their opinion is not based on how a thing is, rather on how they believe a thing is.

You think I’m kidding? I saw an excerpt of a congressman in support of a veto present a chart of an egg and an eagle. He proceeded to tell his audience how his five year old brat knew that without the egg, you can’t have the eagle. What sort of person likens the birth of a bird to a human being? We do not exist outside of our mothers, protected by a shell. We exist inside because we are so vulnerable and underdeveloped. Humanity takes a lot longer before it resembles itself. I wonder what this guy tells his kid about the scrambled eggs he feeds him every morning. There’s a baby bird in every one according to the fundamentalist view of life.

Knee jerking … it all boils down to people with antiquated views on reality dictating life for the rest of us. It’s the same story with abortion rights and allowing patients on life support to be released from their pain. Though in this instance the veto was on federal funding of stem cell research, which is not the same as a restriction of the research. Bush promised in 2001 to limit federal funding of this research. We can see who he chooses to keep his promises with.

Now, down to brass tacks … the Chinese and Japanese industries are leap years ahead of the United States on this potentially life saving technology. They understand that there IS a humane way to utilize embryonic stem cells for research. And let’s be honest here, America will lose its super power if other nations learn a cure for illness and disease. No amount of prescription medication will keep us afloat in the face of such science. Personally, I like Asian culture so … I’m set.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMAZON

You know, I believe our society has expanded and advanced so quickly that we are unaware of our potential as a Whole. Not only do more of us live longer, we can be more civilized about it, giving us the chance to learn and contribute. I feel it safe to say we are well past the realm of basic survival, man against nature and all She commands.

The society we create today has too much of the jungle in it. We still cling to primal ways of thinking. There's too much competition when we should all embrace the social organism of safety and provision we contribute to. We're still in the habit of knee jerking, only now we respond to one another instead of nature. Ah but what can you do when society is ruled by men?
Don't get me wrong, I like men. Heck, I am one. I understand why men have been on top so far. In our various stages of evolution, men have consistantly been larger, heavier, taller, more muscular; essentially, we're physically better suited to survive the world. And I must say fellas, we've done a bang up job!

Yet our supremacy quickly turned misogynistic. Our society relegates women and children to the care of men, which often translates to control and dominance over them. We've become comfortable belittling their role in our species. We've only given them the physical aspects of equality; our opinions of them are still negative, weak, inferior.

Further, we men dissociate with a part of ourselves in such a woman fearing culture. Men believe feelings and emotions to be weakness, instabilities on the inside. Thus, we call them femanine and relegate them to the female sex. To display them outwardly reveals weakness to other males.

Which leads me to believe that the days of patriarchy are numbered. Feelings and their emotional expressions are a HUMAN PHENOMENON. They are merely a refined version of instincts, adapted to compensate for our prefrontal lobes (intellegence). And in today's world, our conflicts are interpersonal. To be close to one's feelings is to hold sway over the majority of us who do not.

In short, I believe women should rule the world. We men have conquered just about every inch of the planet, we can relax now. We no longer need conquering. We need to sustain life, to cultivate it. That is the job we men have decided women do best, right?? Is it any wonder that a certain unnamed psychoanalyst suggested men are ultimately seeking the comfort and security they knew from their mothers?

Golly I know this seems like a fairy tale, but it doesn't have to be. Since we have government in place, we can create a world that fully supports women as mothers. That would remove any pregnant woman's need for the father to be faithful. Let's face it ladies, mens eyes do wander. Fess up fellers, you love conquering new territory.

We must find a way to shift gears as a species, or else crash and burn. I firmly believe we accomplish this by exhonorating women. Men even admit that women are smarter, and the connection to their emotional selves is precisely why. We as a species-wide and history-long patriarchy have placed women in the role we now need most in our world.

Ladies! You are a majority (however slight). Let's bust some ass here!