Ab Ovo

I’ve finally finished Boo Boo Bear!  It took me several days to think about how I wanted to design his character: I had to make sure he was about half the size of Yogi and had the right characteristics (same size nose, big bowtie, etc).  I also didn’t want to bead him standing like Yogi–so I used some left over dark brown to try and add some perspective to him.

I have lots of other characters to work on, I’m a little undecided as to what I should bead next!

So I finally finished Yogi, I was waiting for some more dark brown perler beads to come in the mail.  I am mostly satisfied with the result, as he was the first character I free-handed.  I am going to be working on Boo Boo the Bear soon.

Yogi before ironing

Yogi after ironing

The Internet (or “the Internets” as George Bush affectionately calls it) is the one place where anyone can write or proclaim anything. On the internet, Martin Luther King could be a perverted plagiarist or a civil rights activist, and the Holocaust could have happened, or it doesn’t necessarily have to, based on what websites one is reading. To regulate this raw collection of knowledge, this environment where left, right, down and up opinions are available—is wrong. One can see clearly that private corporations are moving to choke the life, the opinions, out of those that they govern. Private corporations seek to manipulate the media, serving as the fourth branch of the government, and convince its unknowing audience that each individual possesses no opinion or pull on the system. Having trouble with this plan, private corporations have now begun aspiring to be cultural gatekeepers of the Internet—media consolidation and the collapse of net neutrality represent one of the biggest threats to democracy.

Independent voices are being quieted, and the free flow of idea and information is being stymied (“Media monopoly…”). Media is a political issue, as deeply felt as the economy, health care, or education (Beckerman). The issue unites both the extreme right and the incredibly liberal left to join forces with the middle-of-the-way political advocates in opposition to an incomprehensible machine, one without a sense of individuality, passion, any human intricacy at all (“Save the Internet”).
    Our forefathers all made intrepid claims about a capitalistic society surviving for years to come, and the United States serves as the first major example of such an ideal system. No one ever said that the system would be without underhanded leaders, without disgustingly immoral tactics by our “Nation’s finest,” our governmental authorities being lured by empty promises from these corporate conglomerates at the sake of the vulnerability of the people they claim to protect. The last time someone oppressed us in this way, we traveled three thousand miles of ocean and set up our own camp, rebelling in glory and starting anew. We are not completely hopeless or helpless—we should be called to stand up against these pressures, and then unify against our nemesis.

Works Cited

Beckerman, Gail. “Tripping up Big Media.” Columbia Journalism Review March/April 2004 <http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/6/media-beckerman.asp>.

Free Press. “Who Owns the Media?” <http://www.freepress.net/ownership/>.

“Media Monopoly Made Simple.” (“Ten Things Big Media Doesn’t Want You to Know.”) <http://www.freepress.net/media/tenthings.ph>.

“Save the Internet: FAQs” http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq.

Wired News: “‘Net Neutrality’ Battle Widens,” http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70800-0.html?tw=rss.index

Is an abortion immoral? The grueling war between pro-life and pro-choice advocates has raged on for decades, each side staunchly shouting to the rooftops why an abortion is or is not ethical, legal, or acceptable. Yet it matters not whether abortions are considered moral, but that women today even have a voice in the matter. In chapter ten of Margaret Sanger’s revolutionizing work Women and the New Race, she tells her readers, “Society has not yet learned the significance of the age-long effort of the feminine spirit to free itself of the burden of excessive childbearing,” (Sanger, n.p.). Sanger, primarily the leader in the abortion movement of the early nineteen hundreds, printed pamphlets and magazines that reached women nationwide, spreading knowledge about abortion, dedicating herself to making birth control widely available, respectable, and virtually harmless. Also, Sanger’s crusade called for effectual and legal birth control above all. The long and noble battle she fought was carried on by her successors and resulted in an increasing acceptance of birth control in the United States. Though the war may never be over, Sanger’s accomplishments on behalf of women have irrevocably changed the path of history and established a legacy far greater than anyone could have imagined.

Centuries ago, in a much more primitive society than today, abortion and infanticide were the most universal solutions to periodic overpopulation in pre-industrial societies. They were considered to be criminal practices during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although well documented in the transcripts of trials and in newspapers, suggesting that both were widespread (London, n.p.). Lewd conduct (abortion) was allegedly so common that, according to Anthony Comstock, “New York City’s streets are teeming with prostitutes and pornography,” (“People and Events” n.p.). So driven by his Christian morals, he stormed to the nation’s capital, helping to pass what was going to become the Comstock Law of 1873. Comstock waged a vicious campaign against media and institutions he considered detrimental to public morals, but this law was most concerned with barring “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material from the mails, specifically contraceptives and birth control information.

Comstock’s law stood in place unchallenged for almost half a century until Margaret Sanger. Working as a nurse and dealing primarily with impoverished women on the Lower East Side of New York, Sanger was well aware of the harmful effects of unplanned and unwelcome pregnancies. Sanger made up her mind to fight the Comstock law after saving the life of a tenement dweller, Sadie Sachs, from the affects of a self-induced abortion (Steinem, n.p.). She wanted to insure that women received contraceptive education, counseling and service. The term “birth control,” was first employed and coined by Margaret Sanger at the beginning of her quest for justice (London, n.p.). In 1914, Sanger published and circulated her magazine, Women Rebel, sharing birth control techniques she had learned about in France. She was accused of violating the Comstock Laws and jailed. Two years after, she opened the first birth control clinic in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn. Sanger had more support than she imagined—hundreds of women attended the clinic, enabling her and her sister to open more clinics across the city. Yet within one month police arrested Sanger, her sister, and her friend; they also closed the clinic (Steinem, n.p.). Charged with “maintaining a public nuisance,” she was convicted and jailed again, but then organized a school for fellow inmates. After her release, she won an appeal, opening the way for physicians to give birth-control advice in New York City.

Sanger drew her inspiration from the Suffragette Movement, believing in the ideology that legal reform was possible if newly won political power was used (London, n.p.). She once commented that her supreme goal was to make “medically prescribed birth control legal and available to anyone for any reason” (Sanger, n.p.). Yet Sanger’s attempts to get the Comstock Laws repealed were unsuccessful, and between 1912 and 1930, House Bills were repeatedly rejected. So Sanger stuck with her steadfast approach at being defiant: she began publishing Birth Control Review, a monthly magazine that she edited until 1928. She founded the American Birth Control League and served (1921-1928) as its first president. In 1927 she organized the first World Population Conference in Geneva. Sanger was then honorary chairperson of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., which was formed from the ABCL in 1942 (Sanders 79). Despite all of her hard work, Sanger encountered an immense amount of opposition. At best, they were pro-life supporters. But men and women who didn’t support the woman’s right to choose, as well as the religiously righteous who considered the notion of birth control repugnant for other reasons were Sanger’s biggest resistance.

Yet Sanger wasn’t concerned with the arguments of pro-life advocates. Amidst all of her triumphs, she also saw clinic bombings, the murders of six clinic staff members, the attempted murders of 15 others, and assault and battery against 104 more. In each case, the criminals claimed their justification was that potential fetal life is more important than a living woman’s health or freedom (Steinem, n.p.). Sanger always pointed out that women should be looked at as important equals, not simply ‘baby machines.’ Finally, in 1936, the Comstock Law was amended by Congress to exclude birth control information and devices. Sanger’s work had essentially been validated—all of her hardship was not in vain. Just a year before Sanger’s death, 1965 saw the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that married people have the right to practice birth control without government intervention. Seven years later, in 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court held that unmarried people have the same right (Sanders 79-82).

It had taken nearly a whole century for the population to progress from the limiting censorship of the Comstock Laws to contrary Supreme Court rulings. Although the morality of an abortion was relentlessly questioned, Sanger and her cronies had merely wanted the circulation and availability of materials concerning abortion so that women were enlightened. Sanger didn’t want to see any more women like Sadie Sachs. Speaking out in her 1918 article “Birth Control or Abortion?” Sanger firmly states, “Those who are responsible for denying [knowledge of birth control] to her, and she herself, should understand clearly the dangers to which she is exposed by the dark age laws which force her into the hands of the abortionist,” (Sanger 3-4). For Sanger, the obligation that was forced upon a woman by her family was much more immoral than the death of an unborn fetus; her goals were altruistic and pure.

Regretfully, Sanger did not live to see the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Roe v. Wade in 1973, the ultimate culmination of all of her work. Although triumphant progressive steps to what Sanger envisioned, the previous court cases almost took a half-hearted stance and proclaimed that the government could not intervene. Yet in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision clearly stated that laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. The result of Roe v. Wade remains one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history (“Abortion” n.p.).

Although the decision in Roe v. Wade was to clear up any misconceptions regarding the law and abortion, some still suggest ideas about how to deal with the conflict. Last month, in the United Kingdom, Duncan McNeil, a Scottish Parliament Minister, proposed adding oral contraceptives into methadone in order to punish opiate addicted women who are taking steps to end drug dependency and lead healthier lives. McNeil offers a Faustian deal: If you want methadone, [which is a medically approved and prescribed treatment for opiate addiction], then you must give up your right to procreate (Jayasinghe n.p.).

Clearly, although abortion and birth control usage is politically legal, it is not always socially acceptable. Of course, opinions on something as controversial as abortion are driven by anything from religion, politics, and personal experience, so there will never be a decision that will satisfy anyone. However, everyone, especially women, can be educated through pamphlets, magazines, the internet, as well as other types of media. Sanger’s goal was to enlighten women, but not necessarily get everyone to agree with one another. She taught us, first, to look at the world as if women mattered—by word and deed, she pioneered the most radical, humane and transforming political movement of the century. (Steinem, n.p.). Sanger sums it up with her article “Birth Control or Abortion?” “When all is said and done, it is not the advocates of Birth Control, but the bitter, unthinkable conditions brought about by the blindness of church, state and society that puts up to all three the question: Birth Control or Abortion–-which shall it be?”

The intricacies of the human psyche always astound me. And, really, why shouldn’t they? Don’t we hold ourselves much higher than the next animal?

There was a report on BBC News this morning that Californians will start slipping pigeons in their area, especially Hollywood, birth control, in order to control their population “mess” via feeders on rooftops. Giving pigeons human birth control? That’s a new predatory habit, I doubt I have heard something much more unnatural than that or seen a more sizable display of evolutionary tampering.

I understand the population problem. I live in an area where if hunters do not participate in Deer Hunting season, the deer eventually starve off, simply because there is not enough food, especially through the season change. Then again, the simple shooting of deer to protect the other deer is significantly different than, say, potentially causing a problem for not only this generation of pigeons, but for generations afterward, by giving them hormones not endemic to their species, to any species.

According to the BBC, “Animal rights groups support using the contraceptive in preference to other methods such as gates which give electric shocks and poisoning.” In my personal opinion, I almost think that animal rights groups should campaign against the use of birth control because it is truly abnormal. More incredible than, perhaps, electric shocks to pigeons, simply because electrically frying pigeons is more physical than birth control, which is much more hormonal and volatile. It is also less invasive, and it seems to me a lesser offense of oppression.

Scientists are still unaware of the varying long-term effects of birth control on humans, much less pigeons. Maybe it does not seem practical to think about it to such extremes, but the decision to go through with giving birth control to pigeons could cause a catastrophic collapse of the species and result in extinction solely caused by the human race. Eventually.

Of course, this is only if one chooses to look at this situation for possibly more than it is: when I first read this article I wondered who gave humans the right to do such a thing, but I am sure most people would read it, and decide because “they are just pigeons,” it deserves no more consideration. At the same time I could not help but wonder what would be next after this seemingly small start.

I am not asking anyone to look at this of oppression by the big of the small, by the humans of the animals. This is not an overly liberal or green idealism that all of us, humans and animals, should be held more or less equally. I am simply wondering if humans are meant to tamper with most or all of evolutionary forces, which in all fairness, are still theories, but nonetheless, widely accepted theories.

Every animal has its niche, and has a purpose in a food chain. For humans to take a decisive, disruptive action such as this shows complete disregard for how the world is supposed to work. If the most widely accepted theory of evolution is the thought that humans somehow evolved from primates, the Great Apes, then why are most of them on the verge of extinction?

Back in September of 2005 the BBC was reporting that “Human settlement, logging, mining and disease mean that orangutans in parts of Indonesia may lose half of their habitat within five years. There are now more than 20,000 humans on the planet for every chimpanzee.” And these days the prospect is no better, with four gorillas killed for no apparent reason in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Concerning this recent story, it is believed by the area’s conservationists that the killings were not committed by poachers, but by those individuals seeking retribution for the engulfing feud between citizens over the charcoal trade. BBC reports, “A census carried out in 2004 estimated that 380 gorillas, more than half of the world’s population, lived in the national park and surrounding Virunga volcanoes region. The latest killings take the number of shootings in the area to seven. Earlier this year, two silverback male gorillas were shot dead in the same area of the park, while a female was killed in May.”

Over-fishing, over-mining, over-harvesting of trees–humans seem to be overly responsible for a lot of negativity concerning the biosphere.

I never understood how one could make the definite decision to let it happen, either. We litter, most of our garbage is stuffed in a landfill or ends up in the ocean where we can “ignore” it. People have little or no concern, it seems, about a significant amount of things, aside from what concerns themselves.

We need to protect our Earth, and not just for our fellow humans and our offspring, but for the animals that have helped us survive and evolve in the way our theories suggest. Perhaps the extinction of pigeons or gorillas or any other species placed in a similar situation could impact us in irrevocable ways we might not care for.

By then it will be too late to have concern.

“…Apart from the church, the white men had also brought a government. They had built a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in ignorance. The court messengers . . . were called kotma . . . [they] guarded the prison, which was full of men who had offended against the white man’s law. They beat the men, [who were] made to work every morning clearing the government compound…”

(Achebe, 160.)

Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart narrates a fictitious story specifically concerning his own Igbo people of the lower Niger region, but one that is (generally) based on one of the most sordid sagas in all of civilized history: the shameless, forceful, contamination of pristine African culture by outsiders. White outsiders, who brought with them the white man’s religion, Christianity. The missionaries established the church first, and then began an educational system, building schools that eventually could further one’s position in society faster than upholding the traditional Igbo values of “wisdom, experience, and wealth.” The church first (typically) attracted the osu (outsiders) of Igbo society—men of little account/title in society, perhaps ex-slaves—and in Achebe’s Arrow of God, his introducer (KWJ Post) makes the point that the Warrant Chiefs that the British instilled in Igbo society were a source of greater conflict than even the purely religious converts.

This is not necessarily a race issue, but one of religion. I am being raised as a Catholic by my parents, and this past Saturday at church, I realized why I seldom have an argument now, when I am ordered to put on presentable clothing and follow them to our small parish some miles down the road. I was one of those children that never liked going to church. I was bored, I was sleepy, I never understood the parables as a five year old. Church was just a place for all the adults in my life to get together and after they were done paying attention to our priest’s sermon, went to get bagels and spend Sunday mornings eating a prolonged breakfast with their families. As a [younger] teenager, I faked terrible stomach cramps every Sunday morning, feeling a certain thrill in pretending that I was old enough to be a real “woman”, and a certain disappointment when my mom never fell for my act. Usually one Sunday a month we skipped church, and for a while I remember always skipping church, not even going to the Saturday night mass, which was easier (and faster) than Sunday morning.

My mother seldom had good answers for my questions about church. When I asked why we had to go (with a terrible attitude, mind you) she answered, “Because you have to go to church.” And when I encountered some sort of issue that could be misconstrued as relevant to my religious faith, she usually had a comment that related to me being a “good, Christian girl.” These responses lead me to believe that my parents were both raised with the irreversible notion that church was a necessity in any respectable adult’s life. When I was in seventh grade I absolutely refused to believe in a God—I was a do-or-die atheist, partially because I hated being forced to attend church, and because I just never felt what one was supposed to feel about church, about a “higher power.”

Those feelings eventually changed, one day, though, as I realized what my small parish truly meant for me. Our priest, Father Grohe, has been there as long as I have. He has rarely missed a mass, and he says them everyday except Tuesdays. And I came to the conclusion that I do not object attending church anymore because of him, not necessarily because of what the Catholic church preaches. He has never truly said anything concrete against homosexuals, against homosexuals and potential marriage, against abortion. He has rarely (if ever) incorporated a current event or controversy into his sermon. Actually, he has done nothing the past seventeen years except interpret the gospel with a positive message, one that still leaves me warm and fuzzy by the end of it. And this past Saturday, as I looked around at my parish members, I really felt as if we were a family, because of my priest. I am no longer an atheist, and at one point in time I was even content to call the thing I believe in the Christian God. The real shame with that opinion of mine was that I never really thought about what it meant if I should call the “thing I believe in” the Christian God. A friend once asked me if I had ever read the Bible, and I was never (and still am not) concerned that I have never read the full Bible, that I casually do not know most of the passages. And when Tony asked me about my faith, I had no answer at all. All I knew was that, I was content, and did not bother searching past that complacency. If Tony asked me today about what I label my faith, I would tell him that he was right, that I still have not read the Bible, but even if I had, my issue with Catholicism would not be with its principle text, it would be with the stories of ancient missionaries, of imposition upon those with different beliefs and foreign gods.

At one point I fondly called myself a “cafeteria Catholic” when one asked about my faith and my beliefs, because I am certainly not a supporter of the Catholic church. I am pro-choice, I do not believe in abstinence simply because it is written that I should, I support those who are homosexual, and I encourage the use of birth control. Said beliefs on these issues alone would be enough to get me officially banned from the Catholic church. This, of course, is terribly convenient, since I have made the executive decision I no longer want to be part of the Catholic church. And this decision has something to do with having read Achebe’s work, which I also encourage all people to do, especially high school students and government officials.

I completely understand that Achebe, being a proud part of the Igbo tribe himself, has some automatic bias towards those who chose to impose their religion upon his people, and the people of Africa. But regardless—one has to understand that not much effort is necessary to make the white man of the late nineteenth century during the “Scramble for Africa” look like a monster. In fact, Malcolm X took specific solace in knowing that his belief in the Nation of Islam and the Honorable Elijah Muhummad belonged to him and Afro-Americans alone, not the white man.

“Brothers and sisters, the white man has brainwashed us black people to fasten our gaze upon a blondhaired, blue-eyed Jesus! We’re worshiping a Jesus that doesn’t even look like us! Oh yes! Now just bear with me, listen to the teachings of the Messenger of Allah, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Now just think of this. The blond-haired, blue-eyed white man has taught you and me to worship a white Jesus, and to shout and sing and pray to this God that’s his God, the white man’s God. The white man has taught us to shout and sing and pray until we die, to wait until death, for some dreamy heaven-in-the-hereafter, when we’re dead, while this white man his his milk and honey in the streets paved with golden dollars here on this earth!”

(Malcolm X, Harlem, June 1954).

While X claims that the white man is the sole reason that today’s Afro-Americans in the United States have no sense of self, Achebe provides the story to fit the reasons why, which is precisely my primary problem with the Catholic church–imposition. Things Fall Apart is such a narrative, one that details the severe repercussions of forceful imposition, and in doing so should stand, along with other works, as a warning.

Such idiosyncrasies of the human race floor me. I see the need for balance in today’s world: one should not let history own one’s future, but instead use the past as some sort of reference guide to gauge the future. Christianity is not a religion that offers an opportunity for balance, and is so inflexible that perhaps people should start to dismiss it, or at least some parts of the belief-system. Then again, I suppose other religions also lack this certain flexibility, making it truly an opiate of the masses.

If more people understood the motto, “Live and let live,” I believe there would be fewer problems in the world. More simply, it is an ignorance on my part that I cannot seem to wrap my head around the logic that some people use to assert superiority over others. I see no reason why white people are typically considered better than any other existing race, by whites and non-whites alike. It pains me I will never be able to fully understand the struggle of those who are not white in today’s world, simply because I am white. But more than that, I find myself wishing (in the sappiest of attitudes) that humans could find a way to coexist peacefully.

It seems to me no more than a problem of networking –how everyone, everything, can fit together on one Earth. An animal can instinctually understand its place in a region, in a food chain, in a biosphere, yet humans are deemed so complex they fail to even understand one another.

Is there an excuse? Perhaps.

We forget that humans are but animals, yet we also come complete with our own dramatic tragedy, one that our past has helped to shape.

Our world is one immersed in strife along with controversy, and one of the contributing factors is, naturally, the issue of gay marriage. The idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships (Economist). But as of August 2004, thirty-seven states have enacted “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage, whereas other states have similar legislation pending (Robinson). So much of our nation’s overly religious past holds deep roots in our Constitution and the laws we uphold: a substantial portion of our country’s populous base their decisions on “God’s definition” of marriage. People not against gay marriage for the religious implications may also be against the marriage for political reasons: some feel that homosexual partners ready to be married shouldn’t receive the same benefits (financial, familial insurance through a job, etc.) as a heterosexual couple, arguing that same-sex marriages do not contribute as much to society as a married man and woman. Others disagree because the sole reason for marriage is the procreative obligation individuals have to mankind: same-sex couples cannot procreate and thus should not be allowed to get married. And then there are just those people out there who are incredibly uncomfortable with anything homosexuality-related. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing (Economist).

Yet supporters of same-sex marriages contend the definition of marriage is simply a commitment, a union, between two people who sincerely love each other. Some believe the solution to this societal issue is what is now termed a “civil union,” a legal partnership agreement between two persons. But why must it be called a “civil union” and not a “marriage”? The terms seem unequal at best, and for what reason? Clearly a civil union is a compromise for now, but the minute terminology must be sorted out in the near future. I believe that because our nation claims that we keep church and state separate, same-sex marriages should be labeled as “marriages,” nothing more or nothing less.

It seems as though most of the controversy centers on governmental definitions of marriage, rather than the blessing of same-sex unions by individual religious organizations, which may or may not be recognized as civil marriages (Robinson). In his book Moral Politics, George Lakoff points out, conservatism is based on a “strict father” metaphor of morality, in which a wise father (church or political leader) sets the rules, and the children (the people) are disciplined to comply, thereby gaining self discipline, and with it, autonomy and self-sufficiency (Bidstrup). However, in the most basic sense, the government’s only function is to uphold the legal agreement between the partners, regardless of sexual orientation. Not only do some disagree about the level of governmental involvement within the realm of personal issues like marriage, they may also feel that the “rewards” gleaned by same-sex couples should not equal those of heterosexual couples. Opponents assert that marriage is a privilege, a “natural right” based on the biological need to procreate. In this view, “marriage” between same-sex couples is not itself the same kind of “right” and can be allowed or disallowed as law decides. These same people argue that trying to “equalize” such arrangements through force of law will only create crass social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature. The reason that homosexuals should only be rewarded “civil unions”, according to Mr. Bush, is that using the term “marriage” would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Homosexual partners want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings—the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition (Economist).

Interestingly enough, there is no consensus within Christianity about the nature of homosexuality, what the Bible says about homosexuality, or what policies to enforce about gay and lesbian members, especially candidates for ordination, rituals, or study programs (Robinson). But religious zealots through the various religions of the theological world shout that God did not intend for anyone except a man or woman to marry one another. They argue that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage according to traditional, cultural, and religious understanding. They maintain it does not fulfill any procreational role, and/or sanctions a partnership centered on sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. A fundamental concern of these opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a reduction of the power of religious institutions in daily life. Some may also believe that legalizing gay marriages will lead to more development of unconventional marriage practices, like polygamy, incestuous, or even between humans and animals. How then should conservatism, as a political movement and a way of life, come to grips with the reality of gay marriage? In precisely the same way that it has come to grips with its errors with regards to racial segregation: own up to its mistake, and simply expand its moral boundaries to include gays and gay marriage (Bidstrup). Currently, no lawsuits have been brought against churches in nations which have legalized same-sex marriages.

Regardless of religious or socially oriented arguments, both parties involved should be concerned about children in relation to said marriage. Bill O’Reily, of The O’Reily Factor, recently asked if there would be a potential deficit within a woman-woman marriage: would their adopted child be missing a father? What repercussions would this have on the child, especially if they adopt a boy? It is a proven fact that a child’s same-sex parent will be the most influential person in that child’s life, but as of late, there is no “official” proof that lacking one gender of parent has any detrimental effects on a child. Murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages (Bidstrup). This argument should center on the children: for our children are the future of the world, instead of social and political aversions to the idea of gay marriage.

Essentially, the government cannot attempt to socially “equalize” a homosexual marriage with that of a heterosexual marriage, but that is simply because of people and their gruesome judgments that only personal experience will alter. Society is mistaken in its collective belief that legal issues should be more important than those irreplaceable feelings of love and attachment felt by all, regardless of race, gender, especially sexual orientation. I sincerely believe that the compromise between opponents and supporters of same-sex marriages is embodied in civil unions, but only for a short time. It should be realized that the definition of marriage is simply a sign of love between two people, and if that can’t be appreciated, then society has really lost sight of what truly matters.

Works Cited

Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives.” 02 June 2004. 12     December 2006 <http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm>.

Economist News Group.  “The Case For Gay Marriage.”  The Economist.  26 February        2004.  12 December 2006.  <http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.        cfm?story_id=2459758>.

Robinson, B.A. “SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (SSM) & CIVIL UNIONS.”     Religioustolerance.com.  01 January 2006.  Religious Tolerance.  12 Dec 2006.        <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm>.

I must have been asleep during the first part of my book The Autobiography of Malcolm X, because I got to page 278 when I sat straight up and understood what Malcolm (in addition to Alex Haley) was attempting to say. And this is precisely what Malcolm X says on page 278 that caught my eye:

Most mysterious is how did those Jews—with all of their brilliant minds, with all of their power in every aspect of Germany’s affairs—how did those Jews stand almost as if mesmerized [that] which was gradually developed—a monstrous plan for their own murder. Their self-brainwashing had been so complete . . . If Hitler had conquered the world, as he meant to—that is a shuddery thought for every Jew alive today. The Jew never will forget that lesson. . . . And this time the British acquiesced and helped [the Jews] to wrest Palestine away from the Arabs, the rightful owners, and then the Jews set up Israel, their own country—the one thing that every race of man in the world respects, and understands.”

X goes on to discuss MLK’s search for African-American civil rights, or, “that ‘Farce on Washington.’” Those who took a key part in MLK’s non-violent juggernaut were a different part of African-American, according to X.

Yes, I was there, I observed that circus. Who ever heard of angry revolutionists all harmonizing . . . with the very people they were supposed to be angrily revolting against? Who ever heard of angry revolutionists swinging their bare feet together with their oppressor. The very fact that millions, black and white, believed in this monumental farce is another example of how much this country goes in for the surface glossing over, the escape ruse, surfaces, instead of truly dealing with its deep-rooted problems.

The ideology that X presents throughout the whole book, however, is one of clear aggression and separation of African Americans from “the white devil,” simply because of all the evils that the “white man” has committed against “the Negro.” X reiterates, “One thing the white man never can give the black man is self-respect! The black man never can become independent and recognized as a human being who is truly equal with other human beings until he has what they have, and until he is doing for himself what others are doing for themselves. ‘Integration’ ultimately would destroy the white race . . . and destroy the black race.” (Page 275-76).

Which brings me to the point of this short discourse—BBC ran a story several days ago (July 6, 2007) on a peculiar issue that I thought had been resolved since the sixties when it first exploded onto newspapers worldwide. Emeka Ojukwu, leader of Nigeria’s Igbo people in the south and east of the country, claims that the Igbo of Nigeria have “more reason than ever” to seek independence and resurrect the idea of the Republic of Biafra, citing unequal treatment between his tribe and the rest of Nigeria’s countrymen.

I never remember being taught about the Biafran War in any history class I’ve ever taken throughout high school. Through Global 9, Advanced Placement European History and Advanced Placement United States History, I was never briefed on Africa’s tumultuous past (more than a short fifteen minutes which focused on “The Race for Africa” among more “civilized” peoples), and never really knew anything about its volatile global position, either. Even those who took regular classes—Global 9 and Global 10, United States History, none of those students knew much about Africa. I kept labeling Africa a “country” by willful mistake, and wasn’t sure if Kenya was a country or a capital at that point in time. The capital of the country Kenya is Nairobi, in case you were wondering.

So I went to Wikipedia, I read Chinua Achebe and Wole Soyinka (two of Nigeria’s finest authors, coincidentally both of the Igbo tribe as well), I have yet to read Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which Achebe calls a work that “dehumanizes Africa,” accusing Conrad of being an “out and out” racist (possibly why he’s never been given a Nobel Prize for his extensive work concerning the colonization of Africa). This continent, in my opinion, is utterly fascinating—despite its war-torn history, Africa possesses a mostly unknown, rich culture. The tangled problems that result from its multiple corrupt government agencies, the poverty, the disease—this is a continent, a people, that could use some help, to say the least.
Frankly one of my loftier goals is to follow Africa’s journey as it betters its position in the world.

Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Nigeria—all of it, all of it, comes from the so-called “Race for Africa,” that played out between the world’s superpowers in the late nineteenth century. France, Britain, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Spain, even Italy. All of these civilized societies campaigned for pieces of Africa, destroying its culture and ripping it apart regardless of tribal lines and deep-set boundaries. X calls the African-Americans of America the only race in the world who has no idea of its origins. These individuals are massively unaware of tribal names, of cultural processes that date back to the legendary Queen of Sheba. I am not sure if I am surprised that there was no mention of her in X’s autobiography—after his conversion to the Nation of Islam, did he miss the mention of her in the Koran? Or, better yet, I’ve not finished the book, perhaps that is to come.

Point being that in this respect, X is right. The Biafran War lasted three years, and more than one million people died as a result. According to Wikipedia, “in July 2006 the Center for Word Indigenous Studies reported that government sanctioned killings were taking place in the southeastern city of Onitsha, because of a shoot-to-kill policy directed toward Biafran loyalists, particularly members of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB).” That’s the most up to date blurb on anything about that area, and truth be told, I’ve learned the necessity to follow the news incessantly, and I’ve not heard anything about Nigeria in some time. In fact, it is fair to say that I do not read anything about Africa in the news unless bigger powers are involved. The crisis between Somalia and Ethiopia was not publicized until the United States bombed Somalia to find suspected terrorists. No one stepped up for Rwanda’s Hutus and Tutsis until it was almost too late, and certainly Darfur was not making the front page until Bush promised to do something about it. Frankly I think that it counts as a display of the worst journalistic ignorance. No one cares about Africa, do they?

Why isn’t this publicized more? Africa is so afflicted by disease that the same area that is called the “Polio belt” (only endemic in four countries: Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) is also highly afflicted with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Could it be that the descendants of the people that ripped this continent apart are so ashamed of their ancestors’ actions that they do not focus on those harmful repercussions that could have been prevented? Do they feel that Africa is so far gone it is hopeless to continue bailing it out of debt, out of trouble?

I will give Malcolm X something here: his book is all about racial differences, and the story of Africa makes his point multiple times over. X continually claims throughout his book that the economic and societal differences between “the Negro. . . the non-whites” and everyone else, is the “white devil’s” fault. The white man keeps the black man down, and thus, X calls the the black man to rise up, to respect his women, operate his own businesses and his communities, have self-respect, and take back what is his.

How can the white American government figure on selling ‘democracy’ and ‘brotherhood’ to non-white peoples—if they read and hear every day what’s going on right here in America, and see the better-than-a-thousand-words photographs of the American white man denying ‘democracy’ and ‘brotherhood’ even to America’s native-born non-whites?

(X, 275.)

When I admit to family or friends that I have an insatiable drive to learn all about Africa’s people and history, most of them laugh. Why is that? Do people really believe Africa is a worthless cause? The second-largest and second most-populous continent…a worthless cause. Torn apart by its lighter skin counterpart, and left for dead. Truthfully, I do not have a solution for this continent, but I know I can do better than today’s politicians, for even attempting to formulate a plan is better than ignoring it, than doing nothing at all. I believe, aside from all religious and spiritual influences, that those who are in a “higher” position have a responsibility to those in a “lower” position, a philosophical debate that has been around since Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.” The existence of a human is defined by what he or she can contribute to his or her surroundings; a country’s legacy is defined by what it can give to and what it can do for the rest of the world.

Arguably, hope springs. Today, the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, has “discussed Mediterranean unity and improved energy ties in a two-day visit to Algeria and Tunisia in North Africa,” (BBC). Sarkozy told BBC, “I said to President Bouteflika that the will of France is to co-operate with Algeria in the matter of energy, in all its aspects – the energy of today, gas, but also the energy of tomorrow, civil nuclear energy, biofuels, in the matter of industry.” Also, there is an article of the BBC that states broadly in its headline, that “African corruption is on the wane.”

Let us hope so.

Even though I admit and understand that America has not always been a fair or balanced country, I’ve always thought that [at least] someone in a position of power in our government has recognized the difference between right and wrong. At least one person. Not all of our Congressmen have taken a basic economics course, but naively enough, I thought that naturally one of them would understand that there are consequences for each action, that the American people put them in those positions to lead us, to protect us, to better our societal, economic, and global positions.

I might have been wrong.

On the sixth of March, 2007, a jury found Lewis “Scooter” Libby guilty on four of the five counts against him, some of which included obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury. Libby was entangled in a what was a potential display of a political, vindictive retaliation by our nation’s Presidential Administration. Less than three months later, Libby was sentenced to thirty months in jail and fined $250,000, also being placed on probation for two years following his release from prison.

Valerie Plame, the ousted CIA agent, can never again go back to work, and was arguably put in danger by the leak of information to columnist Robert Novak. Her husband never found anything to suggest that transactions were occurring between Nigeria and Iran concerning uranium, and said so. I can remember watching her testimony on C-SPAN, thinking that the Congressional men and women who questioned her were really wasting her time. I remember Plame being an interesting speaker after her opening statement—she kept my attention throughout the whole thing, and was especially gracious to those congressmen asking the dumbest, most obvious questions. Her testimony made it clear to me that she had been wronged by high-flying authoritative figures, “[jeopardizing] and even [destroying] entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risked their own lives, and those of their families, to provide the United States with needed intelligence,” (Plame).

In Libby’s lawyer’s opening statement, he claimed that “Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House in order to protect President Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove, who has admitted to being a source of the original leak,” (BBC). Meanwhile, the representative for the prosecution, Patrick Fitzgerald, had an alternative conjecture that “Libby had claimed he had learned from journalists that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and was married to White House critic Joseph Wilson, when in fact he was providing that information to the media,” (BBC).

Simply put, Libby was found guilty. The trial dragged on, multiple angles were covered, but the jury found him guilty, and he was given his sentence. Only to be interrupted by President Bush, who, on July 2^nd, 2007, employed his clemency powers and reduced Mr. Libby’s sentence. Scooter doesn’t have to go to jail. It was not a full pardon, it was a commute of an “excessive sentence.” I read Mr. Bush’s reasoning in The New York Times, the transcript of his speech was in a blockquote in the midst of the article written on the story. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Bush listed certain reasons why he believed Mr. Libby’s sentence to be “excessive”: Libby was a “first time offender,” his wife and young children “suffered,” (in addition to Libby, I assume), and his reputation and post as a diligent chief-of-staff had already been tarnished enough.

So, one would assume, in this country of proud democracy, that Libby would stand before the law, equal to every other American citizen. And he didn’t. He was seen above the law with this decision.

That is, of course, if you believe the punishment fit his crime, which, when I first followed this story, I merely thought, “He should do the time.” I tried to look at it logically at first—and what I saw was an Administration who again proved it did not honor honesty, did not reward the truth. In tandem to bipartisanship, Democrats/liberals were angered, and the handful of conservatives who still stand by Bush were, glad, to say the least, the Bush had commuted Libby’s sentence.

But now I am not so sure if the sentence fit the crime. The charges brought against Libby were monumental in their own right, and one can see that perhaps two-and-a-half years of jail time is equally as significant. Yet, a better compromise than Bush completely flipping off the voice of the American people would have been to lessen jail time and not just do away with it completely. The Washington Post, in its editorial, claimed that “to commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense,” and I do agree with that, because, for now, it seems as if the man got off almost free for putting this woman’s life in danger. Bush just has to ride out his term, he doesn’t have to do anything, or he could do almost whatever he wishes, and I personally believe it is a shame it has to be this way. His approval ratings are among the lowest ever a President has ever received, and if any Republican presidential candidate thinks he is going to win the 2008 election, or elections for decades to come, he would be wrong. I sense a liberal backlash coming on in America’s future, and Bush, by protecting his friend and colleague Lewis “Scooter” Libby, has shown that he no longer cares what the American people have to say, because he is not even listening, sealing the Republicans’ faith, as it were.

Another thing that was humorous about this trial—some conservatives’ view about her “alleged covert” status, that because Ms. Plame wasn’t “official covert,” that it didn’t matter what Rove or Libby or Cheney or whomever had done to her, because it “did not count”. I feel as if that is a ridiculously, stupidly, minor point. Whether or not she was officially covert, if her name was revealed she could not go back to work, and the people she once worked with, all of her contacts, were now irrevocably put into danger. The point that she may not have been “officially covert,” is such a cop-out, in my opinion, because it diminishes the real impact of the repercussions Ms. Plame Wilson faced. This reaction minimizes the importance of the principle of the thing—someone, in this case Libby, has to be held responsible for this, and, honestly, perhaps Libby did manage to beat the Justice system. Some conservative citizens also felt it was completely inappropriate of presidential candidate Hilary Clinton to negatively comment on Mr. Bush’s failure to allow Lady Justice to win this fight, because her husband had pardoned “every terrorist . . . on his last day in office.” Looking at The Daily News of the city of New York in which this was printed, I did not know if I wanted to laugh or die—sometimes the way in which people defend things is downright ridiculous. Since when is Hilary Clinton of the exact same body, of the exact same feeling as Bill Clinton? Surely her suggestions to not pardon those said terrorists would make terrible bedroom talk.

Maybe what really counts is that the American government is sending the wrong message to its people and its audience: we are so great that some people in our country stand ABOVE the law—the celebrities, high-ranking government officials, millionaires.

Just not the average citizen this country is built upon.