Mandatory HV Testing

I’m torn… In New Jersey, the president of the state senate has introduced a bill that would require all pregnant women and newborns to be tested for HIV… again, it would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV. I’m not sure how I feel about this.

If this bill becomes the law of the land in the Garden State, it would be the first of its kind in the country. There are states that require health care providers to give mothers-to-be the choice of being tested, and there are even laws that require the testing unless specifically declined by the would-be-mother. But this would be the first to take the measure this far.

There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue...

First off, of course a woman has dominion over her body, just like any other human being (read: us guys). So my first reaction to this news was to shake my head in disbelief that little by little our civil liberties are being eroded away. No human being should be forced, under the threat of criminal proceedings, to take an HIV test. Completely ridiculous, right?

Not completely… there is the life of the soon-to-be child in the belly for whom this measure is designed to protect. An adult woman has the freedom of association to have consensual sex with any adult male (or female) she chooses… this is the way it is and the way it should be. The act of having sex will sometimes, planned or not, result in the beginning of a new life. The new life inside the belly of the woman does not have the freedom of association of choosing its host to carry it to birth… if it lands in the belly of an HIV infected woman, well… too bad little guy/gal. This measure will help intervene on behalf of that little guy/gal to get help faster to the unborn baby, decreasing the chances of it contracting the virus from the mother. Completely warranted, right?

Not completely… There is still the issue of the woman’s privacy. If she has committed no illegal act, what right does the state have to invade her body for any reason? Doesn’t this fly in the face of the Constitution’s clear ban on unlawful search and seizure? What wrong has the woman done to justify this?

And another thing… why are we ganging up on women? If it takes a man and a woman to create a little guy/gal, then why aren’t we requiring every sexually active male in Jersey to submit to an HIV test unless he signs a written affidavit saying he will never have sex with a woman? Wouldn’t that also help stop the transmission of HIV from mother to baby?

OK… I just made up my mind… while this measure is not completely ridiculous as it is designed with the best of intentions in mind, it is wrong. We must not start down the path of looking for an excuse to invade a woman’s body at every possible opportunity. Not only is this unlawful search, it is also discriminatory toward women… it is not the right thing to do.

Bad Habits

The Associated Press recently asked the presidential candidates from the two major parties what they would consider to be their worst bad habits. After reading them over, it became even more apparent to me why it is more important now than it ever has been to drop the two party system!

The AP article says they “did not fess up to anything that would sink the republic”, but I beg to differ. It is incredibly obvious to me that these people can NOT be trusted with their finger on the big red button! (And I don’t mean the ‘easy’ button.)
Here are some of the candidates’ responses to the question of “what is you worst habit?”

Joe Biden: “Too many to list. :)”

My take… How can we trust a man to lead the free world when he is constantly battling with his own demons? And what are they, anyway? Is he afraid to come clean? Does he like to drop-kick puppy dogs? Steal Girl Scout candy?? Rob from the Medicaid account to fund pork projects in his home state of Delaware??? Oh wait… that one’s probably true… Anyway, if he admits to having too many to name, how can we trust the man?

But you know why we REALLY can’t trust this man with presidential power? Imagine this scenario…

Russian President: “Mr. President, we take very seriously your country’s threat to boycott those furry-flip caps from Russia just because of our policy of killing innocent people in Russian school houses…”

President Biden: “Mr. President, we deeply regret this decision and will miss those warm Russian hats immensely, but we simply cannot stand by while your soldiers gun down innocent citizens. We do hope you understand. :)”

Do we really want all of our presidential correspondence ending with a “:)”?!

Hillary Clinton: “Chocolate.”

My take… I really can’t picture our foreign policy being decided on the price of chocolate… I’m perfectly happy with OPEC and the giant oil companies controlling my life, thank you very much! I mean… can you imagine a world where poor, foreign cocoa growers have the power to shove their foreign chocolate products down our throats? I say we need to stop our dependency on foreign cocoa and encourage AMERICAN cocoa exploration efforts! Let’s drill in ANWR!

And besides… I’m not sure Hillary wouldn’t give the Canadians all of our nuclear secrets in exchange for some of those yummy chocolate bars we can’t get down here in the states…

Dennis Kucinich: “Ask my wife, Elizabeth.”

My take… This one’s too easy…

Secretary of Energy: “Mr. President, how can we wean Americans from their dependency on foreign oil?”

President Kucinich: “Ask my wife, Elizabeth.”

Governor of Florida: “Mr. President, where’s that aid you promised from our recent hurricane?”
President Kucinich: “Ask my wife, Elizabeth.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: “Mr. President, our nuclear missiles are in place and ready for the launch… we’re awaiting your command.”

President Kucinich: “Ask my…” Oh… I think you get the idea…

Rudy Giuliani: “Talking too much.”

My Take… I have it from a very unreliable source (me) that there has been speculation that the AP heavily edited the mayor’s response to “Talking to much” from…

“Talking too much. You see, sometimes I just can’t help myself, I just hafta keep talking. Every time I think I should just shut up I find my gums out flapping away… flap flap flap! Can anyone shut me up? Anyone BESIDES John McCain? Like answering this question… simply saying ‘talking too much’ would have probably sufficed but noooo… I have to keep gabbing away… Like when I’m on the campaign trail and I just HAVE to keep spouting off about my record of reducing crime in New York… I know everyone in the country has heard it… like… what? A ga-zillion times? But it doesn’t matter because I just LOVE the sound of my own voice… hey… maybe that’s why I talk too much… maybe I’m addicted to hearing the sound of my own voice… Can I change my answer to that? Naw… I’ll just keep it as is… I wouldn’t want to make it more complicated than it seems.”

I can just see President Giuliani addressing the General Assembly at the U.N…. “And that was how I reduced crime in New York… you guys haven’t heard that before, have you?”

Just then, the ambassador from Cameroon leans over to his colleague from Paraguay and says, “This guy talks too much.”

Mike Huckabee: “Channel surfing on TV or radio.”

My take… great… just what we need… a president with ADD. If the guy can’t keep to watching “Lost” without switching over to “Dancing with the Stars”, how can we expect him to stay on task when it matters? A cabinet meeting with President Huckabee:

President Huckabee: “Mr. Secretary, how’re things going over at the Department of Transportation?”

Secretary of Transportation: “Great, Mr. President! We’ve been able to completely re-haul the budget and now we’ll finally be able to…”

President Huckabee: “That’s nice… What about you Madam Secretary? What’s the latest from the Department of Education?”

Secretary of Education: “Mr. President, not so good. Test scores from every major metropolitan area are down and…”

President Huckabee: “Perfect. OK, so what’s the latest from Iraq?”

Secretary of Defense: “Well, Mr. President, our soldiers have taken some heavy casualties lately. The latest deployment plan is…”

President Huckabee: “Great meeting everyone! Let’s adjourn so I can go catch the finale of ‘24’ tonight!”

Mitt Romney: “Fidgeting.”

My take… I don’t have much to say about this. I just don’t like it. Seems kind of shifty to me… Fidgeting? That’s the best he can come up with? I think he’s hiding something.

Ron Paul: No answer.

My take… This guy is so concerned about keeping government accountable to the people and following the Constitution that he probably couldn’t take the time to answer these silly questions from the AP. Well, Mr. Paul… how are we, the people, supposed to know what your bad habits are? Or your favorite TV show? Or what time you wake up? C’mon man! Loosen up and have some fun! Stop worrying about the darn Constitution for one minute and answer the questions everyone wants to know! What IS your favorite ice cream topping?!?!

My take on all of this… obviously, with these clowns running, we can’t vote for anyone from the two major parties. Do you want a chocoholic outsourcing cocoa processing jobs to those dirty Canadians?! Me neither… and since the Greens are a bunch of Commies… the only logical solution is to vote Libertarian!

*Disclaimer… the preceding column was nothing but my attempt at a little political humor. If you did not find it even a little funny, either: a. you are a little too attached to the two party system; b. your underwear are on a little too tight; c. you belong to the Green Party (I can’t help you); or d. I’m just not that funny… :)

What Are "Rights"?

The word “rights” is often confused with what it truly means. The word is thrown around and given to things the government grants but are not truly “rights”. And just as often, the word is misused to explain what some people in different parts of the world do not have the same “rights” to as their counterparts elsewhere. When an agreement of what the word actually means and how it can be applied to society is reached, only then can we begin to truly debate the correct issues. I will attempt to lay the groundwork for how I believe the word should be used. Every single individual is born with certain rights. What those rights are may be discussed later. For now I shall look at the fundamentals of rights.

First off, rights are not something that can be granted, for if you are naturally born with something, how can it be given? One example of this is the right of free speech. Every single individual is born with the right of free speech. Living in the United States all of my life, this is something that I, as well as others around me, tend to take for granted. Here in the USA, this right is unquestioned. Of course we have free speech. However, when we look at other parts of the world, we tend to think they do not have the same rights. An example of this can be found in China. It is well known that people in China do not have the right to free speech…

Ah, but therein lies the foundation of the problem. People in China DO have the right to free speech… But how can this be? In 1989 countless people were gunned down in the now infamous Tiananmen Square massacre by Chines troops. These people were gunned down because they were demonstrating their right of free speech. It could, of course, be argued that rights are of no value if you are shot dead while using them, and that may or may not be the case. But the simple fact remains, the people of China DO have the right to free speech, those rights are simply not RECOGNIZED.

Now that opens up another can of worms altogether. If everyone has certain rights but those rights are simply not recognized, then why do not more people stand up for those rights? That is indeed a question that haunts me to no end, for there is no greater power than the power of one person standing up for his or her self, taking responsibility for their actions, and recognizing the rights of others.

Back to China, and anywhere else the right of free speech is not recognized. The government that does not recognize the right of free speech in no way takes away those rights, for again, something cannot be taken away that was never given. Governments such as these are of course oppressive and in the end will come tumbling down as the movement will inevitably begin to have individual rights recognized. However, until that day comes, these governments will continue to oppress the right of free speech, but not take it away.

Another example of unrecognized rights can be found in the history of the United States. Before the U.S. Civil War, the rights of African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives were not recognized by the government of the United States. It was widely considered that these people had no rights. They were inferior and therefore their owners could use them in whatever way they pleased. This led to many caring white people, usually from the North, to work tirelessly along side the black leaders of their day to work toward an end to slavery and the right for African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives. When the Civil War ended the rights of the former slaves to hold this dominion were granted by the U.S. Government…

Now again I submit that the usage of the word “granted” is incorrect in this case, for how can you be granted, or given, something that you were naturally born with? It leads me to believe, therefore, that African Americans of the slavery days had these rights all along, they were simply not recognized. The correct terminology that should therefore be used for the post Civil War times is that the U.S. Government finally recognized, and not granted, the rights of this group to hold dominion over their own lives. This, in my opinion, changes things dramatically. As bad as we may now think of slavery and the United States’ endorsement of it, we must now hold it in an even darker, grimmer light.

If, during the time of slavery, African Americans did not actually have the right to hold dominion over their own lives, then we did them no injustice, for we were not taking anything away from them. However, when we view it from the point of view that the right of dominion over one’s own life is something that everyone is born with, the action of slavery becomes the single worst crime humanity has ever committed upon itself. The rights of African Americans were suppressed before the Civil War, not granted after it. This is significant.

My point? (I do tend to ramble…) Simple… “Rights” are something that every human being is born with. If free speech is truly a “right” of humanity, then everyone on the planet has it… it just isn’t recognized by many governments. If the idea of holding dominion over one’s own life is truly a “right”, then African Americans were never “granted” the freedom from slavery… that freedom was just finally “recognized” by our society. By this definition, these two rights discussed were there all along… just not recognized.

So, by this definition, what are our “rights” as individuals? That’s a whole ‘nother ball o’ wax for a whole ‘nother time…

Abortion Debate Rages On

A landmark decision was handed down today by the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of banning certain abortion procedures. The court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban passed by the U.S. Congress on a certain type of so-called partial-birth abortion. In this procedure (and I am over-simplifying here), performed after twelve weeks of the pregnancy has passed, the fetus is partially extracted from the womb, its skull is pierced, killing it, and the rest of the extraction is then carried out. Sounds pretty gruesome to me. The court made the correct decision.

This ruling does not affect the vast majority of abortions. According to information taken from the above referenced article, approximately one million abortions are performed every year, and 90% of those take place within the first twelve weeks. In 2000, the last year data is available for this type of abortion, 2,200 of these dilation and extraction procedures were performed. If those numbers remained fairly constant, we’re talking about 2,200 procedures out of 1 million being affected. Do the math… that equates to 1/5 of one percent, hardly a number that should cause alarm among all of the “abortions for everyone” activists.

Don’t get me wrong… I am staunchly, absolutely, and unequivocally in the “pro-choice” camp. As much is it bothers me personally (there actually are forms of preventative birth control, ya know), I recognize the right of a woman to have absolute dominion over her own body. And it is more complicated than that…

There comes a point when the embryo growing in the woman’s belly takes shape and becomes a little human with fingers and a heart and some actual brain activity. When exactly is that magic point where it is no longer a tadpole (complete with tail) and could be considered a baby with full rights as a separate life? Great question… Now, I’m no doctor… I don’t even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the medical community should come up with some kind of reasonably agreed upon point where, were the fetus outside of the womb, it could survive. Of course I am not talking about surviving completely on its own. Not even a full term baby could do that (they don’t generally have the skills to get a job to help them earn money for food just yet). No, what I mean is that if the baby could survive, like many prematurely born babies (with hospital help) do, outside of the womb, then maybe we should be considering it a little human life even when still inside of the womb. No one would argue that it should be legal to kill a one day old baby. Why should it be any different for a baby still in the belly (again, assuming it can be reasonably called a “baby” at this point)?

Personally, I say we make all late-term abortions illegal (except in extenuating circumstances, of course). By the time the first trimester ends, the woman has had ample opportunity to decide whether or not she wants to have the baby. Remember, 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester. This is a sound and responsible (?) practice.

Now then… a note about the particular article referenced above… One thing I cannot stand is poor journalism. The following is taken directly from this article, written by the Associated Press:

“It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case…”

This is passive-aggressive editorializing. The court didn’t ban this procedure. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create laws that “ban” anything. The United States Congress does have that power. By using the term “ban” the AP article implies that it was the justices of the Supreme Court who made the law, and not Congress. No, the Supreme Court upheld the ban of this procedure, which is something different entirely. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on issues of constitutionality. Agree with this decision or not, the court simply ruled that the ban is indeed constitutional. They did no “banning” themselves.

Poor Journalism

Why do journalists feel the need to sensationalize SO MUCH? Take the following example of a headline (taken from Reuters/Yahoo news at the following site: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/us_nm/usa_flag_burning_dc)

Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag

This headline clearly implies that some students from a liberal university were arrested for protesting something by burning the flag at some rally. After clicking on the link to the story the viewer sees a Reuters’ file photo image of a U.S. flag being burned at a protest, another misleading depiction. After reading the story it turns out it was just a case of arson and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of flag burning.

The issue of flag burning is a divisive one in our nation. On one side of the argument there are those who believe the flag is a symbol of our country and that it must not be desecrated in such a way. On the other there are those who believe the very foundation of our freedom rests on the right to free speech and argue that this act falls under those protections. Regardless of which side of the debate one falls, the obvious intent of this headline was to play on those emotions to get the surfer to click on the link and read the story… and I fell for it.

Turns out this story was nothing more than one of three hooligans setting fire to someone else’s piece of property that was hanging from that someone else’s house, thereby endangering the house and those occupants inside. The three hooligans were caught by police and arrested on various charges, including arson. In interviewing the three suspects, the police discovered they were not protesting anything, as the headline implied, and they even acknowledged that it was a “dumb thing to do”. This story’s headline should have read “Three Yale students arrested for arson” and been kept on page seven of the local paper.

Edwards' Campaign

I will not be voting for John Edwards for President for a couple of reasons. First, as a somewhat devout Libertarian, I need to first look at who gets on the ticket for my party and decide whether or not I like the guy (or gal), as the Libertarian candidate always gets my first right of refusal. Second, I think the guy is a pinko-commie. If elected President, he will make sure the government takes as much of your hard earned money and property as possible before giving 80% of it back to you in “services” and making it seem like he’s doing us a favor. (I will give him credit, though; as he is at least being honest and up front about the fact that he will be doing this, unlike the other major party candidates that want you to believe they can take less of your money while providing you more services.)

You may be waiting to hear the third reason I will not be voting for him, as he is a monster for deciding to continue his campaign despite recent news about his wife’s health. For some reason his wife’s health has sparked a lot of debate around the country as to whether or not he should continue his campaign. I don’t get it. I support his decision to continue to run. My support is based on two assumptions:

1. He had a frank and earnest discussion with his wife and family.

2. He truly believes he is the person to guide this country (and the free world).

The first assumption is vital. We must assume that Elizabeth Edwards is fully on board with this decision and is ready to face the challenges ahead of their family. We must assume that she and John have sat down, with their family, and fully discussed all of the ramifications of this decision. She has repeatedly said she does not want her sickness to be her legacy but rather her strength. It is not like they do not know what is ahead of them on the campaign trail. They have been there before. They know what running a presidential campaign consists of. In short, they know what they are getting into and, as a family, have decided to move forward.

The second assumption is just as important. John Edwards believes he is the man to lead this country. While I may disagree with the communist completely, he himself truly believes this. He sees a great calling for himself. I have heard people say he is acting selfishly in deciding to continue his campaign. I disagree. A case could be made that it would be selfish for him not to run. Of course family comes first… it must. And if his family fully and truly supports him (see first assumption), he has an obligation to the country to fulfill his promise to lead. There is, in his mind, a greater good to be considered.

If these two assumptions are correct, we must concede that John Edwards’ decision to continue running for the presidency despite his wife’s illness is not wrong, but is actually the only correct one. If his wife did not think she could handle it, then he must not run. If his ambitions were based upon greed and power, then he must not run. But if these two assumptions are correct, then he must… I just hope he doesn't win.

Ten Commandments From a Historical Perspective

Before I dive into today's topic, let me point out that I am adamantly opposed to any activity by the government which sponsors religion. Our Constitution is clear that government shall make no law establishing any state religion. When debating public policy, I do not believe we should bring God, Allah, Vishnu, or Buddha into the discussion. We should not, and cannot, legislate religion. That said...

I fully believe the Ten Commandments has a place on government property, especially in and around courthouses.

There has been, recently, a court case in (I think) Alabama where the government was being sued because the Ten Commandments were on display outside of a county courthouse. The argument against them being on display was that by doing so the government of Alabama was effectively sponsoring Christianity and trying to force it on the residents. I am not debating any of this. I do not doubt that was the intention of the display and further believe, as previously stated, it is not the job of government to sponsor a religion. In all of the debate I have heard on this subject, this is the only angle I have heard. On one side we have the religious right, claiming that America was founded on Christian values and should therefore continue to espouse these values. On the other, we have liberal secularists who claim religion has no place in public policy. If those were the only debatable points, I would fall on the secular side of the argument... however, it is not the only angle on this subject from which to debate. Let's talk history...

The Ten Commandments, from a historical perspective, have had a profound and lasting impact on our culture and legal system. For the last 4,000 years they have guided first the Jewish people and then Christians on questions of right and wrong. The very basis of Judeo-Christian law is, in fact, the Ten Commandments. Now, I just got done arguing that we should not base our nation's laws on religious ones, and that is very true. For the present and the future we should not. But there is the fact that in the past, church and state were not separated. For the last 1,700 years the common thread behind the legal systems of those nations who have had the greatest influence on that of our own has been Judeo-Christian. Judeo-Christian law is based upon the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are not the only religious symbols used to depict justice from a historical perspective. The following paragraph is taken directly from the US Supreme Court website (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/figuresofjustice.pdf):

"One of the most recognized legal symbols visible in the architecture of the Supreme Court Building is the female figure representing Justice, who is depicted in three sculptural groups. Portraying Justice as a female figure dates back to depictions of Themis and Justicia in ancient mythology. Themis, known for her clear-sightedness, was the Greek Goddess of Justice and Law. In Roman mythology, Justicia (Justice) was one of the four Virtues along with Prudence, Fortitude and Temperance."

No one would argue that Greek and Roman mythology is a current religion. So arguing that Justicia should not appear on our government buildings from a religious basis would be rather pointless, but... there was a time when Greek and Roman deities were worshipped. The goddess Themis was looked to in ancient Greece for questions of law and justice. A comparison could therefore be made between Themis dispensing law and justice and God dictating the Ten Commandments to Moses. While they both have religious origins, we should not and must not discount them from the historical context. Just as Themis and Justicia belong on our public buildings, so, too, do the Ten Commandments.