It's Time to Break the Seal

Perhaps you’ve heard of the former Massachusetts judge who , shortly before retiring, awarded guardianship of a 31-year-old schizophrenic woman to the parents, who had intended to use that authority to legally force her to have an abortion.  The judge, Christina Harms, also ordered the woman be sterilized.

Harms based her decision on the fact that being pregnant requires the unnamed woman to stop taking her anti-psychotic medications, which makes her incompetent and creates a danger for her safety and that of others.  Harms believes that, if the woman was of sound mind, she would abort the fetus.  Furthermore, the woman has been pregnant twice before.  One pregnancy was aborted, while the other child is being raised by the woman’s parents.  In an attempt to prevent more unplanned pregnancies and “serial abortions,” Harms ordered sterilization as well.

The woman is fighting Harms’ decision, claiming she is a devout Catholic.  Her parents, however, say that isn’t true.  This is the aspect of the story that most interests me.  This judge had the authority to mandate that someone do something that goes against their religious principle.  Granted, the decision was over turned, but the initial ruling may help lay some very early foundations for changes in the law regarding certain religious practices.  Specifically, the Seal of the Confessional.  

I’m not saying that the government ought to be able restrict religious practices at will (or forcibly sterilize people), but respect for religion ought to be secondary to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system if the two come into conflict.  Why is it that one citizen can be subpoenaed and forced to testify, but another, who happens to be a priest, cannot?  Because some guy said so 1,500 years ago?

Anyway.  The Seal of the Confessional, or priest-penitent privilege, requires that a clergy member who, as part of an official religious ritual, hears a confession must keep that confession absolutely secret.  For some reason, this holds up in the courts of secular countries (although an Irish Member of Parliament is attempting to change that in his own country).  

It’s no wonder that priests got away with raping boys for so long.

Proponents of the Seal argue that legally requiring priests to report confessions would violate their religious freedom.  However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that government can restrict certain religious practices if there is a “compelling interest” to do so.  For example, even the most ardent follower of the Aztec religion would not be allowed to make a human sacrifice.  I find it downright disturbing that our (secular) government allows priests to keep secret the confessions of murders and rapists.  Maybe they’re OK with waiting until the afterlife for justice to be served, but I sure as hell am not.  More importantly, our government shouldn’t, either.  One of the most critical means for governments to protect their citizens is through an effective criminal justice system, and allowing this irresponsible practice to continue seriously undermines that system.

And why do so many people assume that religious tolerance means catering to every religious (or at least Christian) belief out there?  Some religious beliefs are simply incompatible with the values of a secular society.  You know, the kind that America is supposed to be.  When such practices begin to threaten the safety and rights of other citizens, they ought to be curtailed.  The Church can make whatever rules it wants to, but America isn’t subject to a single one of them.

The best part is that the Christians themselves could easily resolve this whole thing.  After hearing a confession, priests give the confessor what is called a penance, which is some task to perform that will finalize the forgiveness of your sins.  Typically, a penance is a set number of prayers to say.  Even when I was a Catholic, I wondered why the priests didn’t simply require murderers to confess to the authorities as their penance.  

I assume the official response would be something to the effect of, “If we did that, the poor rapists and murderers wouldn’t confess their sins and they’d be damned for all eternity.”  Gays burn in Hell, but murderers are cool as long as they tell a priest they’re sorry.

The religious won’t like it, but this isn’t supposed to be a theocracy.  Everyone likes to rail against all those oppressive Islamic societies that run their countries according to the tenets of the Quran, but apparently it’s OK if you use the Bible.

Pete for President!

I have good news, America.  There is a man who, I believe, truly wants to serve the United States of America as its President.  After reading the speech he sent me, I feel that he honestly wants nothing more than to make this country as great as it ought to be.  

His name is Peter Wychunis. Here is his speech.

There are those who will say that my campaign is a joke; that I am making a mockery of our political system.  But look at the state of American politics today. The only mockery is the current system running our nation.  Policies are determined not by the Will of the People, but by the highest bidder.

The United States government has furthermore violated some of our most precious rights.  Whether that be a president unofficially waging war without the consent of Congress or something as seemingly innocuous as printing “In God We Trust” on American currency, there is no excuse for trampling on the Constitution of the United States.

American politics is already a joke.  I am here to make a promise.  I will not sell myself to private interest.  I will not be bought out by lobbyists.  I promise to lead this country as it was meant to be led.  By the People.  Instead of getting  votes through the support of private interest groups, I appeal directly to you.  I will uphold those American ideals that have been disregarded by far too many of our so-called leaders. 

If the People see fit to elect me as their next President, I will do everything in my power to pull the government back within the limits laid out in the Constitution.  I will appoint men and women who truly believe in the ideals on which this country was founded.  Men and women untainted by prejudice or by religious or anti-religious influence, whose only goal is to ensure that our society lives up to those standards.

Obviously, the state of our economy is of utmost concern.  I aim to implement major changes that will help stimulate our fragile economy.  For example, I intend to pave the way for the privatization of space exploration.  The process has already begun, and there is no reason for America not to lead the way during this Second Space Race.  The private sector will be able to view spacefaring technology in new ways, bring fresh ideas to the table.  This will inevitably lead to the creating of jobs, from rocket scientists to secretaries.  This is not to say that the government will not maintain its presence in space.  I also intend to lay the groundwork for more in-depth exploration of the Moon; specifically, we will be investigating the possibility of lunar mining.  With natural resources dwindling here on Earth, and no life disturb on the Moon, this may be a viable means to help stabilize the economy.  Unlike some of my competitors, I can’t promise to have a permanent lunar colony by 2020, but I will get the ball rolling.  I will also institute tax policies to encourage businesses to manufacture in America and, conversely, discourage relocating overseas.  Manufacturing will not have as prominent a place in America as it had 50 years ago, but I do not believe that our economy cannot have both manufacturing- and service-based components.  Other policies, such as the legalization and regulation of prostitution and marijuana, will bring in billions in tax revenue.  Though these actions will be considered controversial, I see no legitimate reason for our society to outlaw them.

Another major facet of our current economic state is the national debt.  Considering that a president has eight years at the most with which to work, I can’t promise some incredible surplus by the end of my time as president.  I can promise, however, that my administration will take a hard look at how this government spend the money it does have.  For example, our current military budget seems neither sustainable nor justified.  As official combat operations near an end, the time may be right for an appropriately-sized peacetime military.  While research and development will still be a high priority, there simply is no need for such massive forces in times of peace.  A standing army during peacetime was one of the greatest fears of the men who fought to establish this great nation.  However, the American military will maintain its standard as the world’s most effective fighting force.  As the son of a Vietnam veteran, I know that war is a reality.  But, as in World War II, we will have policies in effect that will enable America to militarize as efficiently as possible.  We will be ready and able to face any threat.

Another target of my spending cuts will be the salaries of our so-called public servants.  Benjamin Franklin once said, “Place before the eyes of [greedy, ambitious] men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”  Although political offices inherently grant power to the person who holds that office, decreasing the salary for such offices will help prevent those from ever running for office who intend only to fatten their wallets.  True public servants are not in it for the money.  The President’s official salary, and those of all other major national political leaders, will be equal to the nation’s average poverty line.

That being said, I am not a wealthy man.  I do need money.  My administration will also be known for its transparency, so I will tell you that, though the President’s official salary will be equal to the nation’s average poverty line, I will utilize my position to increase my personal wealth.  I am not a rich man simply filling his already overflowing coffers.   And I am not taking money from lobbyists; I will do things like make paid appearances in various media, give speeches, write books, etc.  These jobs will be strictly apolitical.

Religion, too, is an issue at the forefront of the American consciousness.  Frankly, the sway that Christianity holds over the policies of this great nation is embarrassing.  Whatever your opinion of our Forefathers’ religious beliefs, it is clear that this country was meant to be run by a secular society.  As those very men who shaped the future of this country said in a 1796 treaty, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”  Contrary to what my opponents may say, this is not a war on religion.  It is a fight to uphold core human freedoms. 

This undue religious influence only holds our society back.  Stem cell research, arguably the most promising scientific advancement in history, is being stifled for purely religious reasons.  Homosexuals are being denied to marry the person they love for purely religious reasons.  The right to die with dignity is being stripped of those who would utilize it for purely religious reasons.  Many of my opponents criticize the theocracies of the Middle East, yet don’t bat an eye at Christianity’s dominance of American society.  Apparently, separation of Church and State doesn’t apply to the religion of our current leaders.

I know there have been people before me who made similar boasts, only to betray the People’s trust.  My campaign appeals directly to you so that you will know that my power does not come from corporate backers and industrial magnates, but from your votes.  Where my predecessors have won votes by selling themselves to private interests, I hope to win votes by doing what is best for America.  I don’t have millions of dollars in anonymous donations to finance my campaign.  I will not come to power by working with private interest groups, and so I will owe them nothing.  I will be free to make the truly right decisions.

My name is Pete Wychunis.  I hope you approve this message.

Manifest Destiny 2.0

Newt Gingrich says there will be an American base on the moon within eight years.  He also expects to have men on Mars in the near future.  Experts call his predictions lunacy (get it?), but I think we should run with this.

What got America its start?  Taking land.  And there's a giant chunk of it, unclaimed, right up there in the night sky.  And who has more of a right to it than the country that got there first?

Here's the plan.  We start out on the moon to get our method of space colonization in order, just like we did with the original 13 colonies.  It should be much easier this time around without any pesky natives.  Aside from the space industry boosting our economy like WWII did, I'm sure there are some valuable minerals to be mined. While there is a treaty that says no country should exploit lunar resources, no spacefaring nation has signed it.  However, America has signed a treaty stating no military installations are to be built on the moon.  We'll have to find a way around that. Regardless, we'll be back on top in no time!

Once that's up and running, we can set our sights on Mars.  Mars!  The Red Planet will look so much better with some white and blue in there.  The best part about space colonies is that there will be new land out there for the taking.  Anyone (who can afford a trip to space) will be able to establish their family in the New New World, just like America's founders did when they came over from Europe.  It could be a whole new aristocracy!

Here's the best part.  There's at least one theory holds that the name Allah, as in Islam's name for god, comes from the title "al-" and the name of a pre-Islam Arabic moon god called Ilah.  What better way to win the War on Terror than to stick an American flag right in their god's face?  Vote Newt!

Fuck the No Cussing Club

McKay Hatch, some 18-year-old nerd from Pasadena, thinks he has the right to decide what you can and can't watch on TV.  He and 35,000 other nerds are up in arms over the episode of Modern Family that aired tonight because Lily, a two-year-old character, drops an F-bomb.  You know, "fuck."  Well, the girl actually says "fudge," but her lips are blurred and the word itself is bleeped out, but it seems like she says "fuck."
In 2007, Hatch founded the No Cussing Club in 2007 in response to the "rampant" cursing at his high school and what he sees as a link between profanity and bullying.  Which is to say, other kids called him names.  Not surprisingly, he now goes to a mormon college.

Hatch claims to have 35,000 supporters.  Assuming they are all regular viewers of Modern Family, that accounts for less than one half of one percent.  Would any TV show, business owner, politcician, etc. succumb to the demands of 0.49% of the people they are trying to please?  Furthermore, this kid isn't even really part of the demographic that Modern Family targeting.  Call me crazy, but my guess is that a show called Modern Family that follows three families is meant to appeal to...FAMILIES!  I don't know if this whiny douche bag is aware of this or not, but the issue of kids cursing is something nearly every parent has had to deal with.  If TV isn't allowed to be relevant, who the hell would watch it?

And what exactly does this kid hope to accomplish?  It's the taboo nature of words like "shit" and "cunt" that give them their power.  As words are used more and more in daily speech, they lose more and more of their offensive connotations.  That's why so many white kids get away with "nigga."  By making such a big deal about a bleeped-out word, you create a Pandora's Box situation that makes cursing seem even cooler than it already is.  And, aside from the fact that membership in a No Cussing Club is like a bulls-eye for bullies, does this kid think that preventing cursing will stop bullying?  Even if we ignore physical bullying, this club cannot hope to achieve any real results.  Languages evolve and new profanities are constantly developing, whether from a change in the meaning of a current word or the invention of a new one.  This club is akin to breed-specific legislation.  In an attempt to curb dog attacks, our wise legislators ban certain breeds to keep them out of the hands of people like dog fighters.  Lo and behold, the dog fighters just pick different breeds to torture until they become just as vicious.

What about name-calling that isn't exactly "profane?"  Is it that much better to be called a loser than a bitch?  Maybe a little, but not enough to justify so much anti-bullying energy into a pointless cause.  More focus should be devoted to understanding the motive behind bullying and raising awareness about its effects, not simply eliminating one of countless tactics used by bullies.

But I digress.  What really pisses me off about this whole thing is that I'm sick of being told how to live my life.  You've got "activists" like Morgan Spurlock who want to decide what I can and can't eat, "public servants" like Nutter who want to tax drinks they deem to be unhealthy, and now we have yet another asshole who knows what's best for society in this kid with two last names.  What happened to personal responsibility?  Why is McDonald's or Coca-Cola liable for your poor decisions?  It's not up to government or corporations to tell us how to eat, and it's not up to TV networks to raise our kids.  Aren't there all kinds of parental controls avaialable on TVs and through cable companies? 

The networks decide what they will air.  If you don't like what's on, change the fucking channel.

If You Buy from Lowe's, You Are a Terrorist.

Advertising can be a tricky thing; you never know who you're going piss off.  Take, for example, Lowe's.  After running commercials on TLC's All-American Muslim, Lowe's pulled them after receiving complaints from some nutjob Christian group claiming to represent all of America.  This group's website has a whole list of companies that have pulled ads from shows that portray anything they don't like and other companies that still choose to promote such deviance as homosexuality or Islam.  They are currently working to get All-American Muslim pulled from the air entirely because it tries to blind Americans to the so-called Islamic agenda.

Decidedly un-American, right?  Religious tolerance!  Separation of Church and State!  Freedom of Speech!

That's what I thought at first.  I actually started this post with the intention of railing against said nutjobs.  Then the saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" popped into my head.  An unfortunate side effect of a free society is that all the stupid people of the world manage to make themselves heard quite clearly.  If one's religion values racism and intolerance (within the law), they have the right to practice freely.  Personally, I'd like to see all of 'em go, but that pesky Constitution promises the right to free religious expression.

Yes, I think this organization is un-American in that they want Christianity to culturally dominate what should be a secular society.  But I can't say they don't have the right to express those beliefs.  That's why the rest of America ought to be just as vocal about their beliefs.  If you're that worked up about it, speak up!  That's what this country is all about, right?  Well, I can't be bothered to email Lowe's and let them know that I disagree with their decision to pull the ads, but you should.

Back to Lowe's.  Wouldn't you pull an ad from a certain show if their was a segment of consumers calling for a boycott of your stores unless you stopped running commercials during a certain show?  Mr. Lowe's has a business to run; he's not out there to change the world.  And unless you want Uncle Sam to decide which shows companies are allowed to buy ad time from, it's up to Lowe's to pull or run ads as they see fit.  Sure, it would be great if Lowe's refused the demands of the ignorant, but I can't blame them for responding to customer feedback.

The world would be a better place without people trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else, but, the way I see it, there are only two ways that can happen: we lose our precious freedom of expression, or suddenly there is no more ignorance.  Which seems more likely?

Nuke-Free Is Not the Way to Be

As can be expected of any (and every) president, Obama has a long list of promises that he failed to keep.  Party politics has a lot to do with that, as well as the fact that not a single politician on the national stage has the a average American's interest at heart.  But there is at least one campaign goal that I am glad to see Obama has been unable to fulfill: a nuke-free world.

A recent article from The Atlantic describes some of the obstacles preventing Obama from making serious progress towards a nuclear-free world.  Thank God.

Don't get me wrong, a world without nukes is a wonderful thing to strive towards.  So is a world without crime.  Good luck.  Just take a look at the countries that have developed or are developing nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran, and Syria.  The only country on that list that could give up nuclear weapons without fear of being are those cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.  Do you really think Israel is ever going to both believe that Iran will destroy its weapons program and then destroy its own?  How about India and Pakistan?  And don't get me started on those commies in Russia and China.  And we certainly can't afford to get rid of ours without knowing for sure no one else has any.

The more you think about it, the less sense it makes for America to give up its nuclear arsenal.  What if Al-Qaeda regains political control in a country with nuclear capabilities?  Suddenly, Obama's motives seem rather suspect.  Now I know why.

Obama's plan is more than just another empty campaign promise or a silly fantasy.  I've come to the realization that Obama wants the US to be defenseless against nuclear attack.  Before asking why, we need to address a more important question: Who is behind this new threat?  The first suspect when it comes to possible nuclear war is, of course, Russia.  But it seems they are pawns in this international plot as well: in April 2010, Russia signed a treaty with the US that will reduce the number of each country's nuclear missile launchers by half.  Perhaps its China, the new Russia?  That also seems unlikely, given that they are already going to surpass the US on the world stage.  Plus, they'll need somebody to work their minimum-wage jobs.  As far as terrorists go, I highly doubt that they are organized and sophisticated enough to wield the kind of political power it would take to manipulate the world's superpowers.

So who could it be?  What nation would want to see the US fall under nuclear winter?

Japan.

Think about it.  The same country that produced the samurai isn't going to "forgive and forget" the killing of almost 250,000 people. Sensing that I was on to something, I looked further into the matter.  It seems Japan planted the seeds for America's current economic situation decades ago, when their auto industry took off in the 1960s.  It wasn't just competition in a free market that turned Detroit into a ghost town and signaled the decline of America's financial status.  The whole thing was engineered by Japanese leaders in response to the dropping of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war.

Here's how the plan has gone along so far.  With ninja-like patience, they rebuilt their country and worked to establish themselves as the leader of the auto industry, knowing how devastating that would be to the American economy years later.

Their next step was to gain the world's trust by pretending that, as victims of the horror of nuclear attack, they would never develop nuclear weapons.  Not only that, but the constitution that Japan adopted in 1947 explicitly forbids the nation from declaring war.  And no one found that hard to believe?  It's not like Switzerland, who hasn't been in a war for almost 200 years; the Japanese were in some serious shit relatively recently and are located in a politically volatile region of the world.  Who the hell knows what North Korea is up to?  Or how strongly China will support Kim Jong-Il?  It's clear that Japan can't take that article of their constitution seriously.  It must be a ruse.

Now that Japan has the world's trust and America is in the Next Depression, the Japanese are secretly working with Obama to rid the US of its nukes and, therefore, its ability to deter nuclear attack.  Some might be inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in this regard, since a nuclear-free world is a noble goal, one which the Japanese may be taking advantage of.  Don't be fooled.  The following picture of Obama and the Emperor of Japan shows just how deep inside Japan's pocket Obama really is.

No red-white-and-blue-blooded American patriot would ever bow that low to a foreigner!  And what kind of self-respecting world leader would show such submissiveness?  It's clear, then, that Obama wants to see America stripped of its most powerful weapon so that Japan can have its revenge.

Now we can get to motive.  Actually, it's not that important.  He lived in southeast Asia in the '70s; he was probably brainwashed into a sleeper cell or something.  The important thing is to act now!  This plan has been set in motion decades ago and is going to be extremely difficult to stop.  We need to let the government know that We Want our Nukes!

Niggardly

Yes, that's how it's pronounced.  But it has nothing to do with a racial slur.  The word, possibly derived from an Old Norse word that meant "to fuss over small details, means "stingy."  It is not related to "nigger", which comes from "negro", the Spanish word for black which itself is derived from Latin.


Over the years, the use of "niggardly" has many times been construed as a racist remark because the two words sound so similar.  For example, Wikipedia has an article about a white aide to a black mayor of D.C. who resigned after colleagues complained about his using the word.  Then-chairman of the NAACP came to his defense, saying, " "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding.  David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."


This incident, and several others like it, highlight an issue that seems to bother a lot of people nowadays: has political correctness gone too far?  Imagine if the word "despicable" was no longer acceptable because it has "spic" in the middle of it.  Or "menu" was no longer used because it was perceived as sexist.  Sensitivity isn't inherently bad, but it can get out of hand.  


More importantly, this so-called controversy demonstrates just how beneficial decent education can be to society.  No one should have their career marred by someone else's ignorance.  But then again, an argument can be made for not using the word out of politeness if you are unsure how it will be taken, but I wouldn't fault anyone for using "niggardly" whenever it is appropriate.  In fact, I would love to see the word become more commonly used.  As a student of the English language, it sucks to see a word fall out of use because it sounds like a racial slur that it is not related to.  Unfortunately, there would be countless immature morons who use the word solely because it sounds so insulting.


I'm not really sure what the point of this post is.  It's been awhile since I've put anything up.  I suppose I just find this issue interesting because I find linguistics, in general, interesting.  I guess the moral here is to remember what happens when you assume.  And go read a book!