The Socratic Scribe

I have so much to say that this is likely to be all over the place, but I have to start somewhere, so here goes. Pardon the sloppy writing by the way.

Yesterday, I had finally had enough in my history class. I am currently enrolled in a graduate course on Ancient Greece. Somehow, our professor finds a way to bring current politics into every class, and he does it in a derogatory way. Every day in class we insults any conservative who might be on his mind, any conservative ideals, and any conservative movements. He makes it clear that anyone who believes in such ideas are mindless idiots not worth taking seriously. Quite a few of us in the class are conservative, or at least subscribe to some conservative values. He also has a thing about talking about sex whenever he can, spending a great amount of time glorifying the openness of Greek sexuality, which included commonplace homosexuality/bisexuality, polygamy, prostitution, and pederasty. According to our professor, our culture is so sexually repressed and put off by the Greeks because of our unnecessary “squeamishness.” So, apparently, it's better to be completely open and loose in our sexuality than to hold it as something sacred and special to share with one person. How dare I believe in chastity and monogamy. It's not like any harm ever came out of sleeping with anyone and everyone. STDs, regrets, unwanted pregnancies, objectification of women – surely those things couldn't be bad. You know, what really irks me is the fact that these liberals are such strong advocates of cultural relativism and yet they judge our own culture relentlessly. Pederasty in ancient Greece? Well, that was just their culture. Female genital mutilation in north Africa? That too is just their culture. Sexual abstinence? Saving sex for the person you are going to marry? That's just sick, ignorant, sexually repressed thinking there. Yeah, the libs aren't too good at sticking to their own ideals, are they.

So, as I was saying, our professor makes it a point in every class to somehow drag politics into the classroom, where they are not relevant to the subject, and voice his personal opinions to a captive audience. Here are a few examples of how this plays out.

We are talking about Alciabades, an Athenian who was extremely handsome and who ended up selling the Athenians out to the Spartans, and who, even after this treachery, was welcomed back to Athens and given another chance. Our professor states that the Greeks had a thing for beautiful people, just like we do, otherwise how would people like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley ever be able to run in a political campaign. He constantly attacks Nikki Haley and accuses her of adultery, though no one has any proof and one of the accusations comes from a member of her opponent's campaign staff, a very questionable source. He bad mouths Rick Perry, blasts the Arizona immigration bill, and yesterday, this is what put me over the top. We were talking about Alexander the Great's campaign and how really there is very little written history to describe what actually happened, one of the most trusted sources being written 500 years after his conquests. I told him how one of the most interesting things to me about history is just how sometimes some of the most history changing events have so little documented about them, and also how historical accounts can contradict themselves even shortly after they occur. I cited a case I had read about earlier that day regarding the opening of the Georgia Guidestones, a rather strange monument erected in 1980 in the state of Georgia. One report has it that 100 people were there for the ceremony, while another states that 400 people witnessed it. This was only 30 years ago. He then jumps to talk about the Tea Party and how all of the Tea Party rallies are photo-shopped to show that more people are there than actually are. He laughed and made fun of all of those “Tea Partiers.” At that point I had had it. The man himself has never attended a rally and has never seen for himself what they are about or how many people are there. He apparently wants to believe that the time lapsed photos taken from the city of Washington D.C. at the 9/12 Tea Party rally are faked. There is enough video and photographic evidence from the thousands upon thousands of people who were there that would prove contradictory.

He also said something quite asinine the other day in class that was only slightly political, but it truly showed his ignorance. He actually repeated it on two different days. He stated ancient history is great because unlike today, there are actual conspiracies that happen. Ceasar was assassinated. That was a conspiracy. But today we don't have any conspiracies. Seriously buddy, are you that ignorant?

Conspiracy, as defined by Merriam-Webster: the act of conspiring together.
Conspiring, as defined by Merriam-Webster: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

I'm sorry, but there are conspiracies every day. We have political conspiracies, business conspiracies, personal conspiracies. When a man takes out a huge life insurance policy on his wife and has her murdered, that is a conspiracy. When a group of accountants fudge the numbers to reap greater profits, that is a conspiracy. When a group of radical Muslims hijack four airplanes and fly them into American buildings, that is a conspiracy. When John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas, Texas, that is a conspiracy. To be so stupid as to say that conspiracies are a thing of the past completely reveals his ignorance, especially his ignorance of history, which he has somehow managed to earn a Ph.D. in and teach at the university level.

I'm not surprised anymore though. Most people who are Christians and/or who are of a more conservative political bent are constantly bombarded by hateful speech from their professors in college. This derogatory treatment of students has no place in the American university system. The university is supposed to be an environment favorable to academic freedom, where a student is allowed to formulate their own opinions and come to their own conclusions based on well-rounded studies, not based on their professors' political opinions or even by a one-sided study of issues. For a professor to push his own agenda or beliefs on his students is an abuse of his power toward a malleable young mind. It is a professor's job to teach his students how to think, not what to think. If the class is examining a controversial subject, the professor should provide the student with access to both sides of the argument. The reading list for the class should consist of books and articles from various view points. In a class on Marxism in Europe, for example, a student should be exposed to both pro-Marxist and anti-Marxist writings. The professor should leave out his own personal opinion of the subject and allow the students to explore the subject and come to their own conclusions. If a professor happens to be a Christian, the classroom is not the place to proselytize his faith. If the professor is an atheist, the classroom should not be a forum for the professor to degrade others' faith. For a professor to vocally assert his own opinion and degrade the ideas of those opposed to him is an abuse of power in a different way in that it intimidates students who happen to disagree with him. If a professor is constantly blasting conservatives, a conservative student might feel afraid to write a paper based on their opposing opinion for fear of being unfairly graded. If a professor makes it clear that he devalues the opinions of those whose ideas differ from his, then on what grounds can a student with a differing opinion trust him to treat his or her ideas with respect? To foster a truly free-thinking and open-minded atmosphere in the university, academic freedom is a necessity and this requires professors to put aside their personal views and to stop using their classrooms to impose their agendas on a captive and vulnerable audience. Academic freedom is the only way to ensure that a university education leads to true enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant writes in his essay What is Enlightenment? that “Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.” An enlightened student must be able to think for himself, come to his own conclusions, and use his own reason. It is only when we learn to do this that we escape from the control of those who would have influence over us for their own sake. Kant continues on. “If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay – others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind...is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens them if they go alone.” When we are not enlightened, when as students, we have been taught to rely on the knowledge and guidance of our professors who “know better” than we do, we end up shackled, enslaved to their control and their ideas. We do not think for ourselves. We do not formulate our own opinions. We do not give birth to new ideas. We have been taught to submit to those in authority and agree with them if we know what is best for us. We must be able to think for ourselves, to voice our own opinions. This is academic freedom. “It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at every point,” Kant continues. “But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The officer says: 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector: 'Do not argue but pay!' The cleric: 'Do not argue but believe!'...Everywhere there is restriction of freedom.” Our professors, when they insult our beliefs, when they assert their ideas and agendas forcefully on us, are restricting our freedom to use our reason. But we do have freedom. We do have the right to think for ourselves, to argue our ideas, to not be intimidated. We have a right to break free from the shackles imposed upon us by oppressive academics. We are the enlightened ones.

Author's Introduction to Anthem

This story was written in 1937. I have edited it for this publication, but have confined the editing to its style; I have reworded some passages and cut out some excessive language. No idea or incident was added or omitted; the theme, content and structure are untouched. The story remains as it was. I have lifted its face, but not its spine or spirit; these did not need lifting. Some of those who read the story when it was first written, told me that I was unfair to the ideals of collectivism; this was not, they said, what collectivism preaches or intends; collectivists do not mean or advocate such things; nobody advocates them.

I shall merely point out that the slogan "Production for use and not for profit" is now accepted by most men as commonplace, and a commonplace stating a proper, desirable goal. If any intelligible meaning can be discerned in that slogan at all, what is it, if not the idea that the motive of a man's work must be the needs of others, not his own need, desire or gain? Compulsory labor conscription is now practiced or advocated in every country on earth. What is it based on, if not the idea that the state is best qualified to decide where a man can be useful to others, such usefulness being the only consideration, and that his own aims, desires, or happiness should be ignored as of no importance?

We have Councils of Vocations, Councils of Eugenics, every possible kind of Council, including a World Council -- and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention? "Social gains," "social aims," "social objectives" have become the daily bromides of our language. The necessity of a social justification for all activities and all existence is now taken for granted. There is no proposal outrageous enough but what its author can get a respectful hearing and approbation if he claims that in some undefined way it is for "the common good."

Some might think -- though I don't -- that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent. The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"

Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.

They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand
April, 1946

Humans are born into environments (by environment, I mean the normal order of things, for example, social structures, political structures, etc), and as we grow, we become accustomed to those environments; and because we are used to them, and because the environment we happen to live in is all we've ever known, we rarely stop to inspect it, to question it, and to challenge it when necessary. For example, we grow up knowing that almost everyone attends school for 12 years, after which people pursue either a higher education or begin a career in a chosen trade. We hardly think, if at all, about all of the other places in the world where children do not attend school, and we hardly think of how it is only recently in the course of history that the majority of a society's population received a decent education. We just go with the flow, unaware and unthinking about the environment in which we exist.

Now, let us move on to another aspect of our society that is even more rarely questioned because we are so conditioned into this process: PROPERTY TAX.

Every year, whether you own a home or are in the middle of paying a mortgage, you pay property tax on top of that. This property tax is used to fund public schools, and the amount you pay is based on the value of your property. Because we have always known this to be the case, that every year we pay property taxes and by doing so, we help support the public education system, we do not question the very nature of this tax system. But if you look closely enough, you will recognize this system as something you studied in your high school history class: medieval serfdom.

Now, there were actually several classes of peasants in the system of serfdom, but what group most mirrors ourselves is the peasant class called Freemen. The name sounds lovely, until you realize that freemen were peasants who just happened to be better off than other classes of peasants, such as villeins or cottagers. Freemen lived on a lord's land, worked, earned their living, and were subjected to pay taxes to the lord for the privilege of living on his land. This is exactly what we do today. Even if we buy a home outright, we still pay rent (property tax) yearly to the lord of the land (our government) just for the privilege of living on the land.

My point is this. We may think that all of our hard work and effort and money that we put into purchasing a house secures us a safe home that is ours and ours alone, but that is never the case. You do not truly own your home in this secure sense. Because you are always subject to a yearly fee to the government, if you can not pay up, a lien can be put up against your property or your house can be seized and auctioned off for payment, leaving you an evicted former home-"owner". If you truly owned your property in the sense that you own the shirt on your back or the pots and pans in your kitchen, then you would not be paying a yearly tax on it. The state government, in this case, is truly the owner of your property, and you are merely tenets.

This is modern day serfdom, and a type of slavery between the citizens of this country and the government. Some might argue that we need property taxes to fund the school system. Well, of course if you are going to have a PUBLIC school system, it will be funded by the public in some way, but that does not mean it has to be funded through property taxes. There are many other options for public school funding without the government resorting to threats of property seizure. The great enlightenment thinkers who broke away from oppressive monarchical governments and feudalistic socio-economic systems, and who set the standard for personal liberty, that all men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty, and property (property was changed to pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence), would be appalled that this form of slavery has crept back into our society and once again placed shackles upon its citizens. Property is an important element of personal freedom in that personal property is the idea that what you have worked for, what you have put your time and effort into and in turn earned, belongs to you, and as such is an extension of you. If someone or some institution declared that they have a right to seize a part of your property, they are setting the precedent for laying claim to the rest of your property or even to yourself. It is a forceful violation of personal freedom to seize a person's property without their consent.

Chances are, a lot of people still have no problem with property taxes. After all, it's going to a good purpose, isn't it? Funding our schools? And it's just a little percentage of our money anyways, a small sacrifice to make.

Our governments, city, state, and federal, are in serious debt. They have spent unwisely and beyond their means the money that we have given them. The past few years, it would be hard to find a single person in our country who would trust our government to make wise financial decisions. Cities and states are shutting down their governments for days at a time and are requesting bailouts. Some are seizing state income tax refunds (which amounts to thievery) because they are in such financial trouble. The U.S. National debt is $12.9 trillion dollars, or $41,925 per citizen. Our Debt to GDP ratio is %90, as our GDP is only $14.3 trillion dollars. Our government has been found wanting in financial responsibility, and the money they are playing with is YOURS. Our governments can not be trusted with our money, and if you can not trust someone with your money, you can not trust them with your life or your freedoms. Those in power and in debt will for the most part care about their own well being before they care about yours, and evidence of this is in the news daily. The city of Philadelphia has just proposed a 10% increase in property taxes for the 2011 budget.

With all of the economic hardships that our citizens are going through, we can not afford to pay for the outrageous financial mishaps of our governments. They can raise taxes to exhorbitant levels, and though WE may have been financially responsible, if we can not afford to pay our property taxes to our irresponsible government, then we are the ones who stand to lose the very homes we worked so hard to own. All because in reality, we never really had a safe and secure home to begin with. The government has had its hand on it from the very beginning.

So I leave you with this question. With the buffoonery of our government today, with all of its irresponsibility, corruption, and cronyism, do you still trust the government to look after you when they find themselves in the midst of a crisis? Do you still trust them with your money, your property, your freedom, and your life? Do you trust them to take responsibility for their faults, or to shirk off their responsibilities and place the burden on you? Eventually, the weight gets too much to shoulder, and the pot gets too hot to handle. Who will be the one to suffer the load? I think you already know the answer.

After posting about the James Bulger case, I received a bit of feedback, calling it "absolute rubbish." It was also assumed that this blog was written by a man, which I am not, thank you very much. I am more than happy to have any comments, be they agreements or conflicting opinions, as they bring more to the table, so I am posting that comment as well as my response to it.

"This blog post is absolute rubbish. He uses the very exceptional Bulger case to make a general point about the British/Western justice system. Only four criminals in the UK have ever been given new identities. It is by no-where means normal practice. Do we really think that a 10 year old child has a proper conception of the effects of their crimes or indeed the indecency of their crimes? Some psychologists do indeed believe that some criminals can never be rehabilitated. This is why we leave these decisions up to the experts in the judicial system, who can look in fair and impartial way at all the factors in a criminal’s case for parole etc. We do not leave these decisions to an uninformed mob or armchair judges like this blogger.

He further undermines his argument by quoting the Daily Mail as a reliable source. This is the paper that recently said that Facebook gives you cancer (for which it is being sued) and should not be used to back up any argument by any person who wants their argument to be taken seriously.

Sorry for the rant. Hope your well!..."


Now, my response:

"First, I find it funny that the blogger was assumed to be male, as this is in fact my blog. Secondly, I do realize that only 4 criminals have been given new identities in the UK. Thirdly, if the link to the Daily Mail is a bother, then I can provide a million more sources from more "respectable" newspapers, textbooks, research papers, etc that state the same thing. I chose that link only as it had come up when searching the news lately.

As far as whether 10 year olds have a proper conception of their crimes and consequences, it can be argued that many adults don't have that either. Every day we make decisions, good or bad, without fully thinking through all of the outcomes of those decisions, and of the full consequences of them. Someone may decide to drink and drive and only think of the possibility of getting arrested, not that they might go out and kill an innocent person on their way home. Because they didn't think of that, does that mean they shouldn't be accountable for that? When you know that something is wrong, you know that you will get in trouble in some way if you are found out, and that you are doing something that is wrong. When I was three, I remember I stole a toy airplane from a friend of mine. I knew it was wrong. I lied to my mom about where it had come from, because I knew I would get in trouble. I didn't know what the full punishment would be, but I knew there would be punishment if I was found out. I argue then that if a 3 year old knows that stealing is wrong, and that they will get in trouble if they are found out, then two 10 year olds know that abducting, torturing, and murdering a toddler is wrong, and knowing that trouble was to follow if they were found out, they placed his body on the railroad tracks to look like an accident. They knew what they did was wrong and they knew that if they were caught they would be in trouble. So they did know there would be consequences to their actions.

As far as leaving these decisions about whether a criminal can or cannot be rehabilitated, or whether or not they should be paroled, up to "experts," the argument is an enthymeme. It is missing an important premise before drawing the conclusion, and for good reason...the premise it lacks is utterly false and would therefore invalidate the argument. The premise that is missing is that those in authority know what it best. I seriously doubt that anyone lives fully believing such a statement, as I'm sure that we've all believed at some time or another that our parents, our teachers, our government, our judges, etc have made incorrect decisions. Hence the reason we protest the war in Iraq for example, or we argue for a better grade on an exam, or we try to talk our parents into not grounding us for the weekend. People are imperfect, which means that those people in authority are imperfect as well. They will sometimes make incorrect decisions. They may believe they are doing the right thing, but part of living in a free society is the ability to voice your opinion about their decisions. I believe their decision to let Venables and Thompson out, as well as give them new identities, was an incorrect but well-meaning decision. And obviously quite a few people feel similarly or there wouldn't be the commotion there is about the case. My point in all of this is that this case is one of those odd scenarios where more justice was given to the perpetrators of the crime than to the victim's family, and the safety of public was overlooked in favor of the safety of the criminals. So many judicial cases are made based on precedents. By that I mean, as rare as this case might be, other similar cases could use this one to sway the judge in favor of ever increasing leniency for their criminal clients.

I only chose to write about this case as it has always disturbed me, both the crime and how the justice system played it out, and because it has been in the news recently. In the USA, we have so many cases constantly of where violent criminals have been released before serving their full sentence and then they commit the same crime again. This is a quite common occurrence with sex offenders especially. Every week on the news you hear about a sex offender who had been "rehabilitated" and who had abducted and killed yet another person. My problem is with the leniency that we give these antisocial criminals. Anyone who's taken any psychology classes at the university level can tell you that antisocial behavior disorder is a disorder that at least at the moment you can not rehabilitate. My problem comes with our justice system, who "knows best," unleashing these people back into society with little interest in protecting the innocent public and more interest in giving the violent offender a second chance. We have people who are in prison for drug possession serving longer sentences than sex offenders. That seems a bit messed up to me. So while I am aware that the James Bulger case was a rather odd and exceptional case, we are seeing more and more of that type of thing in America (children on children crime), and we are seeing more and more leniency being given to dangerous criminals who constantly reoffend. I see a problem, and I want to address it, and because I am a free citizen, I have the right to criticize decisions that I deem to be unjust. I want to point out problems with the philosophies that we are using in the justice system that I feel are hurting the public, because I would love nothing more than to see the trend of releasing dangerous criminals in America reversed."

I'm sure we all realize that there are times when the justice system fails. After all, nothing we can ever set up will be perfect. But what so many people don't realize (or maybe what so many people ARE starting to see after the recent Chelsea King case in California) is that the established philosophy that permeates throughout the Western system of justice has created a state of chaotic absurdity! Let me draw on one case in particular from England. If you've ever lived in the UK, and most likely even if you haven't, you might have heard of the infamous murder case of 2 year old James Bulger by two 10 year old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, in Liverpool in 1993. The toddler was shopping with his mother when he had gotten away from her for mere seconds before he was abducted by the two boys. They led him around the city, tortured and beat him, and then killed him, leaving his body on nearby railroad tracks to be cut in half by a train in order to make the murder look like an accident. James' body was found a few days later by a few young boys who happened to be walking near the area.

After a short while, Thompson and Venables were found, arrested, and eventually sentenced to 10 years' detention. The sentence was lengthened to 15 years, but a European court overruled and decreased it again. The were released in 2001 and given new identities, paid for with tax dollars, and resettled in a witness-protection type of program. They were officially on life license, and were not allowed near Liverpool or to contact the Bulger family. The British government put an injunction in place on the press to prevent them from releasing the boys' identities. This was all to protect the two child murderers from anyone who might want to do them harm for what they had done to little James Bulger.

Now, it's 2010, and guess who's back in prison...Jon Venables, on charges of possessing a massive collection of category 4 child pornography (category 4 child pornography consists of images of brutal penetrative sexual abuse forced on children). The public is understandably angry, as the James Bulger case was probably the most infamous murder in England's recent history.

Here we have two murderers, who have shown no remorse, either while in court or while in juvenile prison, released, given new identities at the public's expense, given a clean slate, with no employer, school, acquaintances or intimate partners ever warned about who they are letting into their lives. Also, a man from Liverpool who looks similar to Venables, has recently, for the second time in his life, been receiving threats because of mistaken identity. He has pleaded with the government to release Venables' identity so that he and his family would no longer be threatened. The government's only response is that this is precisely why they are not releasing Venables' identity, so that Venables doesn't become a victim.

Let me tell you something you ignorant bastards...why care so much about what happens to Venables, and why put this convicted murderer's safety and interests over innocent citizens. Liberalism can be taken too far. This idea that every person is capable of being rehabilitated, and that we should just always give everyone, even the most heinous criminals, chance after chance. It doesn't work!!! It hurts the victim, it is a denial of justice, and it creates the opportunity for more crimes to be carried out. And many psychologists argue that certain offenders are incapable of rehabilitation. That is the reason so many sex offenders reoffend. And these types of crimes grow ever increasingly violent. The sex offender who at first is satisfied with just exposing himself then needs to touch, then needs to rape, then needs to rape and murder. It is the same trend that is seen in pornography addicts. What once gets someone off no longer does so. They need something more extreme, and more extreme, and more extreme! There are people who should never be released from prison. There are people who should spend the rest of their lives locked away from society. They are dangerous, antisocial beings whose only happiness comes from hurting others.

Where do we get off calling ourselves a responsible society when we irresponsibly release hordes of violent offenders to live amongst the public just in order to "give them a second chance" or just in the hopes that they won't strike again. There are certain crimes that humans commit that should invalidate their rights as free citizens. They need more than a slap on the wrist. They need shackles and chains. We are punishing victims and creating the opportunity for more crime by releasing these criminals. We have truly lost our minds when we are so concerned for the well being of two boys who tortured, molested, and murdered a small toddler and not at all concerned for the justice of the victims and for the safety of the general public. I have heard people say that they were only 10 when they murdered James, that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong, that they shouldn't be held responsible for the crime. If you think that, then you missed a very important point of the story that I related to you. They intentionally positioned James' body on the railroad tracks to make his murder look like an accident. You can listen to the audio from their interrogation, and they know right from wrong. They know they shouldn't have murdered James. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they decided to do it anyways. They went to that shopping center with a plan to abduct a child and murder him. And I am sure that when you were 10 you understood that it was wrong to steal or lie, let alone murder someone. You just most likely never even imagined committing murder. That is why it is hard to believe that these two could know what they were doing, but it shouldn't reveal ignorance of moral laws, only their blatant disdain for them and for the rights of others. Wake up people! When it is in a person's nature to hurt and torture and kill, all of the rehabilitation in the world can not stop it. We can carry out justice by stopping this insane pandering to criminals and their cries to be treated with more mercy than they showed their victims. They knew that their offense was wrong. They offended. They are undeserving of further consideration. Let God show them grace if he so chooses, but our duty is to protect the innocent against the criminal and to let a fair justice be carried out. Let's screw our heads back on straight folks.

I'm posting some links related to the James Bulger case, updates on Jon Venables, and an article about rehabilitating some violent offenders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1256779/Some-offenders-like-Jon-Venables-Peter-Chapman-CANT-rehabilitated.html

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15663332

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8560951.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

As you can see from the title of the post, I'm going to be discussing something pretty big, but it's so big that I need to break it into parts, examine each piece, and put it all together to see how each piece affects the next, and to reveal just what a tangled web we have weaved. I think what I'll do in this post is to try to come up with an outline of what I'll be addressing in each post and what the goal is of this series of thoughts. So, I'm going to attempt to organize all of these thoughts right now:

I) Human Trafficking/Sexual Slavery
A) Statistics
B) Deconstructing and Defining the Following Terms
1) Slavery
2) Freedom
3) Force
C) Supply and Demand Theories
D) How We Are ALL Feeding DEMAND for Women as Sexual Objects, thus Contributing
to Trafficking

II) Objectification and Its Implications
A) Deconstructing and Defining the Following Terms
1) Objectification
2) Degrade
3) Derogatory
B) Forms of Objectification
1) Pornography
2) Sexually Degrading Speech
3) Sexual Degrading Environment
4) Objectification in the Media
C) Implications of Objectification
1) Women Valued ONLY as Physical Objects, Other Aspects of Their Being Ignored
2) Increasingly Negative Relationships Between Men and Women
3) Women Valuing Themselves ONLY as Physical Objects
4) Lowered Self Esteem, and In Turn Higher Vulnerability

III) Women: Making it Worse for Ourselves
A) Deconstructing and Defining the Following Terms
1) Prostitution
2) Hooking Up
B) Women's Rights: Getting Equal or Getting Even
1) Playing Power Games
2) Sugar Daddies and Gold Diggers
3) Dangerous Sex
4) Women as the New Pornographers
C) Implications
1) Relational Disconnect
2) STDs
3) Propagation of Objectification and an Environment of Sexual Usury

IV) Men: It's Your Problem Too
A) Addressing Excuses for Degrading Behaviors
1) It's "Natural"
2) Just Enjoying Women
3) Too High a Drive to Control
4) That's What Women Want
B) Rewiring Your Hard Drive
1) Jesus Calls us to be MORE and BETTER and Overcome Our Sinful Desires
C) When Is an Action Sinful or Harmful
1) Define Sinful
2) Define Harmful
3) Analyze Various Situations

V) Sex, Love, and Lack Of
A) Sex Without Love
1) Valueless
2) Fragmenting
3) Unsatisfying
4) Encourages Objectification of Women
B) Sex With Love
1) Value
2) Wholeness
3) Satisfying
4) Encourages Full Appreciation of Women

VI) A Snapshot of Our Society
A) Sexual Attitudes and Habits of Women
B) Sexual Attitudes and Habits of Men
C) Teenage Sexuality
D) Dangerous Trends
E) Sexuality and the Media

VII) Creating a Healthy Environment for Women and Ending the War Between the Sexes
A) Education and Honesty About Sexual Issues
B) End Objectification
C) Nip Unhealthy Sexual Practices in the Bud
D) Quit Playing Power Games
E) Women Need to ReValue Themselves

Okay, so that was a LOT of stuff to think about. This was the first time I have been able to somewhat organize these thoughts. Like I said, there is so much I am going to address over the next several posts, but it is SO important. If women truly want to be equal, and truly want to be respected, we have to tackle all of these issues. And probably more. The first step to stopping a problem is to acknowledge it. This means that you have to at first be made aware of it. Once you are made aware, you can learn about it, analyze it, and then address it. We really need to see some major changes in our society over the next few years, because we are so quickly slipping into the deep end and we don't seem to know how to swim. Next time I'll start with my talk on Human Trafficking and Sexual Slavery. Why this issue when so much I will be addressing has to do with relationships and sexual norms and media and society? Because sexual slavery is the accumulation of all of these attitudes and practices and it reveals the degradation and dehumanization of women at its worst. You'll see the relationship between sexual slave and master mirrored in many relationships that you see everyday in our society. Women think they are asserting themselves and are putting themselves on equal footing with men, but all they are doing is perpetuating unequal treatment. I'll leave today with the lyrics from a few popular artists and songs. You'll hear these on the radio, and I'll be discussing these in particular in later posts when they become more relevant. But I just want to leave you with a real awareness of just how real and how important the issues are that I'll be addressing. Also, as a side note, I will not be censoring these lyrics. We don't need to sugar coat what we are constantly being exposed to. We need to address them head on.

Ke$ha - Blah, Blah, Blah

"Ba-da-da-da-ba-da blah, blah
Coming out your mouth with your blah blah blah
Just zip your lips like a padlock
And meet me at the back with the jack and the jukebox
I don't really care where you live at
Just turn around boy and let me hit that
Don't be a little bitch with your chit chat
Just show me where your dick's at

Music's up
Listen hot stuff
I'm in love
With this song
So just hush
Baby shut up
Heard enough

Stop ta-ta-talking that
Blah blah blah
Think you'll be getting this
Nah nah nah
Not in the back of my
Car-ar-ar
If you keep talking that
Blah blah blah blah blah

Boy come on get your rocks off
Come put a little love in my glove box
I wanna dance with no pants on
Meet me in the back with the jack and the jukebox
So cut to the chase kid
'Cause I know you don't care what my middle name is
I wanna be naked
But your wasted

Music's up
Listen hot stuff
I'm in love
With this song
So just hush
Baby shut up
Heard enough

Stop ta-ta-talking that
Blah blah blah
Think you'll be getting this
Nah nah nah
Not in the back of my
Car-ar-ar
If you keep talking that
Blah blah blah blah blah

(3oh! 3)
You be delayin'
You always saying some shit
You say I'm playin'
I'm never layin'
Sayin' "Blah, Blah, Blah."
'Cause I don't care who you are
In this bar,
It only matters who I is

Stop ta-ta-talking that Blah blah blah
Think you'll be getting this
Nah nah nah
Not in the back of my
Car-ar-ar
If you keep talking that
Blah blah blah blah blah"

3Oh!3 - Don't Trust Me

X's on the back of your hands,
Wash them in the bathroom to drink like the bands.
And your setlist (setlist),
You stole off the stage,
Had red and purple lipstick all over the page.
B-b-b-bruises cover your arms,
Shaking in the fingers with the bottle in your palm.
And the best is (best is),
No one knows who you are,
Just another girl alone at the bar.

She wants to touch me (Woah),
She wants to love me (Woah),
She'll never leave me (Woah, woah, oh, oh),
Don't trust a ho,
Never trust a ho,
Won't trust a ho,
'Cause a hoe won't trust me.

Shush girl shut your lips,
Do the Hellen Keller and talk with your hips.
I said, Shush girl shut your lips,
Do the Hellen Keller and talk with your hips.
I said, Shush girl shut your lips,
Do the Hellen Keller and talk with your hips.

Adrienne Bailon - Big Spender

Boy, I can be that every thing that you need
If you can give me all your money, baby, you can have me, yeah
Boy, I can be that every thing that you need
If you can give me all them dollars, baby, you can have me, yeah

Simple things in life will fulfill
I like the diamonds, I'm a material girl you see
Fast cars and a love making noise
I need that money, come and buy me something, honey

Expensive lip gloss and my, my finger nails
My hands, they're flying in the window expecting brand new wheels

If, if, if, if you're a big spender I can be your love toy
If you're a big spender take me home to your mama, boy
If you're a big spender you can give me your number, boy
If you're a big spender I can be your material girl

Live in your material world
I'll be your material girl
Live in your material world
If your life is expensive, boy

Katy Perry, 3Oh!3 - Starstrukk

Nice legs, Daisy Dukes,
Makes a man go (whistles),
That's the way they all come through like (whistles),
Low-cut, see-through shirts that make ya (whistles),
That's the way she come through like (whistles),

'Cause I just set them up,
Just set them up,
Just set them up to knock them down,
'Cause I just set them up,
Just set them up,
Just set them up to knock
Them down

I think I should know how to make love to something innocent without leaving my fingerprints
Out,
Now,
L-o-v-e's just another word I never learned to pronounce,
How do I say I'm sorry 'cause the word is just never gonna come out,
Now,
L-o-v-e's just another word I never learned to pronounce

Tight jeans, double d's makin' me go (whistles),
All the people on the street know (whistles),
Iced out, lit-up make the kids go (whistles),
All the people on the street know (whistles),

'Cause I just set them up,
Just set them up,
Just set them up to knock them down,
'Cause I just set them up,
Just set them up,
Just set them up to knock,
Them down

I think I should know how to make love to something innocent without leaving my fingerprints
Out,
Now,
L-o-v-e's just another word I never learned to pronounce,
How do I say I'm sorry 'cause the word is just never gonna come out,
Now,
L-o-v-e's just another word I never learned to pronounce

Push it baby, push it baby,
Out of control,
I got my gun cocked tight and I'm ready to blow,
Push it baby, push it baby,
Out of control,
This is the same old dance that you already know,
Push it baby, push it baby,
Out of control,
I got my gun cocked tight and I'm ready to blow,
Push it baby, push it baby,
Out of control,
This is the same old dance that you already know

I think I should know how to make love to something innocent without leaving my fingerprints
Out,
Now,
L-o-v-e's just another word I never learned to pronounce

A few months ago I was rummaging through Half Price Book Store. After sifting through tomes of history books, literature, psychology, and sociology texts, I found myself in the philosophy section. Throughout all of my undergraduate degree (I earned a BA in English/Creative Writing from Texas A&M in 2007), I shied away from philosophy courses. In my head philosophy was reserved for those with an unwavering frown who were always arguing and debating irrelevant issues just for the sake of feeding their egotistical intellects. So there I was browsing through the philosophy section when I came across The Philosopher’s Way. I picked it up out of curiosity, and as I began to turn through the pages, it immediately piqued my interest. My goal is to be a professor (whether at a college or a university I am unsure as of yet), and I had been trying to figure out what subject I should pursue for graduate study. Not long before, I had enrolled at UHCL to work towards an MA in Literature. A couple of semesters in I realized I didn’t care so much for literature, at least in its traditional sense. I also had an interest in history, in sociology, psychology, theology, and politics. I could never narrow myself down in any of those fields. I was very interested in the history of ideas, of thoughts, how worldviews affect society and individual lives. I also had an interest in what I see as so many problems that confront my generation. None of those fields offered the scope and the depth in which to pursue my interests academically. I picked up this textbook, and as I began to read, I realized how blind I had been to overlook philosophy. Within the opening pages, all of the issues in which I was so passionate about were discussed. It was then that I threw my old view of philosophy out the door and I realized exactly what philosophy is:

Imagine a figure of a human body. The left arm may represent history, the right mathematics, the left leg sociology and the right psychology, or whatever other subject matter you wish to assign to it. Philosophy, on the other hand, is not any limb on the body. It is the blood that flows throughout this whole body of knowledge that mankind has accumulated. Just as the blood in your body allows each of your limbs to function according to their purpose, so does philosophy in every subject that we examine. And just as, in our bodies, the same blood that flows from our heart eventually makes its way into every part of our bodies, philosophy makes its way into every subject. It is for this reason that while I could never choose between history or literature or politics, philosophy is a perfect fit because it has its hands in every field.

As far as what philosophy is exactly, anyone can give definitions quoted from famous philosophers or based on the derivation of the word itself. Because the idea of philosophy is, in my opinion, one of those evanescent thoughts in which our human minds cannot ever fully communicate to another, words will never truly be able to define it. I believe basically that philosophy is the art, the practice of wonder, of pondering, of examination and thinking critically about a variety of deeper issues; but, to really get a clear understanding of its true meaning, one only has to look at what has come from it. Science was birthed of philosophical curiosity. Political systems have risen and fallen based on different philosophical ideals. Moral codes are developed and adhered to. Societies and individuals are swayed by the philosophical worldviews of their times. Philosophy is thinking, reasoning, searching for truth. Philosophy gives us the ideas and the assumptions through which we live our lives. It is the lens through which we see our world. In this way, whether we have complete or incomplete answers to our questions, or right or wrong ones, philosophy is of value because of the power of ideas in shaping our beliefs, our directions and decisions, and because of this, it is vital to learn how to practice philosophy in our daily lives.

And how exactly do we do so? I’ve thought about this a lot over the past few months, and I believe the best way to enable ourselves to think philosophically (that is, to question ourselves, our beliefs, our intentions, our motives, our society, our government, etc.) is to put the brakes on your brain. That probably sounds counterintuitive, but let me explain. Our brain, like a computer, works towards efficiency. Once we do something so many times, we begin to do it automatically. To put it in different terms, we let our brain think for us. Now, our brain works this way for a reason. Because of this design, we don’t have to consciously think about basic things that we need to do. However, it can hamper us from really examining ourselves and the world around us to a deeper extent. How often do we walk outside, get in our cars, run our errands, and live our lives without giving any of it a second thought? If we want to live philosophically, if we want to grow into better people, if we want to understand and to better the world around us, we need to STOP! Put the brakes on your brain and examine what you are doing and why before you ever do it. Here’s an example. Every day my husband comes home from work and changes out of his work clothes for the day. But what does he do with the clothes he’s just taken off? He leaves them lying on the floor. It’s an automated response. He’s done it every day for months now. So, what would happen if he put the brakes on his brain and examined what he was doing and why? He takes his clothes off, but before he throws them on the floor, he thinks to himself, “Why do I leave my clothes on the floor and what are the implications of doing so?” He realizes he does so because he is tired from a long day at work and walking a few feet to the hamper seems like it’s not worth the effort. The implications are that his very loving wife then has to pick up his clothes for him. Because he loves his wife, and because he realizes that walking three feet to the hamper really isn’t that much more work, he doesn’t leave his clothes on the floor. This in turn makes the laundry easier to do and his wife a lot happier, and as I’m sure anyone here who is married knows, a happy wife makes life a lot better. This of course was a rather silly and lighthearted example, but you can take the principles of stopping and thinking before you do something and apply it to so many aspects of your life, big and small.

It is, in my opinion, of utmost importance that we do stop to question and examine ourselves, our motivations, and the world around us, because, if we do not do so, we face the meaningless life that Viktor Frankl wrote of, and we are doomed to live in an “existential vacuum.” To do such a thing would be to suffer the fate of purposeless existence, of having no reason to live, to grow, to progress, to change, to contribute something to our world.