When A Good Man Goes to War

"Demons run when a good man goes to war
Night will fall and drown the sun
When a good man goes to war
Friendship dies and true love lies
Night will fall and the dark will rise
When a good man goes to war
Demons run, but count the cost
The battle's won, but the child is lost." (Doctor Who)

Despite having many opinions on things, there are several topics that I rarely want to take a stand on. War is one of them- who am I to tell other people that their taxes should go towards something they may be morally against? Who am I to tell other people that I believe their children should put their lives in danger? 

I have two cousins in the United State Navy. One of whom is currently deployed and will most certainly end up in Syria should we declare war, and I'm positive the other would be there in a heartbeat. Both of whom have become fathers for the first time this year. 

And yet...even knowing all that and keeping it in my heart and in my mind daily, I find myself ready to make a statement:

The United States should go into Syria. 

Honestly, this is the best excuse we have had to go to war since the American Revolution. Nearly every war in our history has been entered into for resources or because some country "made it personal."

We should have entered into World War II sooner. We knew people were dying in horrific ways and we knew the potential for it expanding. Still, in an attempt to not abuse the power of the United States, there was no action, no support, until Pearl Harbor- and the Japanese cutting off one of our oil supplies. 

Today, we still have power and the ability to intimidate with our military. But we also have the opportunity to prevent a catastrophic event. 

Chemical warfare has always been the "no-no." It cannot be ignored, and we should not ignore it. 

This isn't like the supposed weapons of mass destruction that was used as an excuse to go into Afghanistan. This is real people dying in a way that can barely be controlled. There is far too much room for error, and far too many people who would abuse chemical warfare being ignored.

This is where war changes, forever. If there is no retaliation this will escalate. There is no way to prevent a third World War- but I do not believe this will be the cause. I believe this will deter it and save millions of civilian lives.

The Problem with Sustainability

As I walked through my grocery store the other night- desperately searching for peaches- it occurred to me what a terrible environmental studies major I am.

Living in the United States creates an inherent entitlement that is, honestly, hard to even identify within ourselves. There’s so little we don’t have accessible to us at all times that it barely registers when we’re abusing the planet for something.

Peaches are a good two-three months away from being “in season” where I live. But the recipe I was making requires peaches, so I drove to two grocery stores to find them. Eventually, I did find them, and I purchased them, cooked them, and ate them. But as I stood there in the checkout line, I was a little horrified with myself.

This meal probably had more miles behind it than my roommate’s recently purchased used car.

When I was younger, one of my best friends told me something that has stuck with me since that day, and has driven my entire philosophy towards environmentalism: “It’s fine if you recycle, but there’s a reason that ‘Reduce’ and ‘Reuse’ are listed first.”

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

I had been taught since I was eight, and had always been proud that I would consistently recycle- even after those big parties where we could fill two garbage bags with the pop cans and bottles. But never, not once, had anyone really explained the significance.

Being from the Midwest, I’m guilty of living in a house that is, most likely, not properly insulated for the region- we value the house being “normal” looking and will pump thousands of extra kilowatts into keeping it warm to preserve the aesthetics. Being from Minnesota, I grew up traveling in the car each and every day going down to the lake and back during the summer, and to near every city for hockey during the winter.

I am not the environment’s friend, and that is the exact problem with sustainability.

Sustainability requires a shift in thought- a cultural movement.  

Aldo Leopold is often cited as the first conservationist; his writings were inspirational to many for their conscientiousness of a “land ethic” and their nostalgic representation of wildlife. Leopold’s primary message was that humanity must recognize that they need the land, and, in doing so, must move forward with a lifestyle that protects their way of life and the land. What he wanted most was for humans and nature to have a symbiotic relationship that would last for generations.

Thoreau preached this as well through his retreat into the wilderness, and President Theodore Roosevelt felt a similar need to protect nature- using his power to advance the establishment of national parks. This concept had persisted through the generations; but society at large has often ignored this innate sense of obligation to the land for the commercial gains. Even John Locke once wrote that we can only use this planet so to “leave ‘enough, and as good.’”

It is important that we no longer ignore that we have an obligation to future generations. Already we have to explain that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, do we really have to explain why Earth is no longer inhabitable? We are nearly beyond the “Tragedy of the Commons,” there are hardly any commons left for us to destroy. It is even more tragic considering we know about these principles, know about the science that rules the world we live in, and blatantly ignore them. And, in doing so, we have permanently altered our planet.

Particularly here in the United States, we do not acknowledge that we are adding to the climate problems around the world. Our history has been to take, and ask questions later. Let other people deal with the mistakes caused by short-sighted actions. This country has used many fossil fuels throughout its history; trees, coal, gold, and oil have led to degradation of these lands. When we began to use more of these resources than we were capable of producing, we found other sources rather than reevaluating our energy needs.

Today, two of the most tragic decisions Americans have made are in Alaska and North Dakota. For the sake of oil, and merely postponing our inevitable need to find an alternative fuel source for cars, boats, and planes, we have deciding to destroy the environment. It is a process that is truly harmful, to humans and the natural habitat that is being disturbed.

No matter how hard these operations attempt to leave no trace, there is always an environmental impact. In North Dakota, they use hydraulic fracking to extract oil. They blast thousands of gallons of water- with nearly a thousand chemicals in it- into the ground to break the rock. This water is then dumped into giant craters.

Water is an incredibly dangerous ways to extract oil and natural gas; it can be absorbed into the ground, and taint the groundwater. Not only the water, and all the potentially dangerous chemicals, but the same fuels they are freeing can leak into this most vital of all resources. There are videos of people lighting their tap water on fire.

This not being common knowledge is a severe problem. If people only see the benefits, but none of the consequences, these harmful practices will just continue on.

As mentioned earlier, the difficult part with any actions towards sustainability is the culture shift behind it. In truth, it practically calls for an overhaul in American culture. It calls for us to change the fact that we think in the short-term, and in a capitalistic manner. Capitalism and access to resources is what built this country; and, historically, we have abused this.

If I was writing this in an English class, I guarantee my instructor would be upset with my use of the word “we” throughout all of this. One of my history teachers would as well, saying that “’we’ didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers did.’” I would probably apologize to them because I respect what they do; however, I must admit that I use “we” with a very specific purpose- the people currently living on Earth are just as indictable for the actions their ancestors made against the planet.

The issue is that we rarely see it as “our” problem. We sit here, in a country where most of it is uninhabitable, but living here because we have found ways to control the climate within our houses. This is the most discouraging part for environmentalists. That and bottled water.

I think Reduce, Reuse, Recycle needs to be…recycled. Re-purposing this well-known phrase could, in fact, help reshape the way humans live. But, Reduce and Reuse need to be emphasized, Recycle needs to be taught as the “backup plan.” We need to stop pretending this is a problem for later generations, and we need to take responsibility for those who came before us. They may not have known better, but we certainly do.

We recently reached a frightening level of sustained CO2 levels- 400 ppm (parts per million) in certain regions of the world. This is a scary time, for those who know what this means they hear “point of no return,” and those who have never heard the phrase before hears “oh good, more ‘global warming’ nonsense.”

This needs to change if we have any hope of riding this wave. The government and corporations will do nothing as long as there is no outcry from the people that support them. People need education on ways to change their standard of living, because there is only one Earth…and we are nearing a point where it can no longer be saved. The planet cannot afford for us to mock or demean those attempting to educate the masses on our obligations to the rest of humanity.

It will already take longer than current generations will live to reverse this damage- but that cannot be the message we take away from it. The message everyone needs to hear is that, with enough time and effort, it can be reversed. Complacency will not do for this mission- it will only kill our planet, and our progeny, faster. 

Pope Francis- A Better Politician

I read today that Pope Francis recently made a rather extreme statement- that he (and thus, all people of the Catholic Church) is not in a position to judge gay clergy for their actions. And, by extension, that gays should be welcomed into the Catholic community. 

At first, I was thrilled. Finally someone gets it! 

Having grown up Catholic, I have never understood why we were entitled to judge and cast down other people. Are we not all sinners? Isn't that kind of the whole basis of our religion? 

We're so far from perfect that only a sacrifice could possibly make up for the things we do in life- particularly to each other.

I've said time and again, to the point of irritating my non-Catholic friends I'm sure, that it makes me so sad the views most people have of Catholics.

Don't get me wrong- we deserve it. The history of our Church is filled with bloodshed. Now, though it may not be murder, the Church has seemingly abandoned the basis of the religion: Love.

I may not go to mass every Sunday, but I can promise you that the message always should have been about love. "For God so loved the world," "Love your neighbor."

This new pope is quite incredible, actually. That he would acknowledge these truths I have clung to, so desperately, hoping and waiting for the day the Church finally returns to the root of the religion.

All people are people, and all of them loved by God. That we, as mere humans, should not judge them for having different beliefs or a different way of life but for their morality as a person. That we are all treated equally in the eyes of heaven. 

Most importantly- that being an atheist, or being gay is not immoral.

It should be noted that the Vatican retracted the statement by the Pope regarding atheists (it's probably only a matter of time before they retract the one about gay people). I have a very clear idea of where the whole of the Vatican will end up. 

I'm thrilled that he would advocate these feelings. Speaking to the most fundamental principles of his faith is so necessary in his position.

Then I had to take a step back...because his position is one of power. Perhaps not as politically powerful as it once was, but he is the religious leader of nearly 18% of the worlds population.

My hope is that he is not simply being shrewd to fill pews. I hope that he is sincere in these messages and will continue to speak to them.

My fear is that he has spoken to these points and will not continue to have these opinions grow as part of the faith. That this is a show of goodness...and only that. A show. A clever ruse to have media praise the new Catholicism. He did allow the Vatican to retract his blanket salvation statement, after all. 

Searching through a few articles on it, my suspicions can only grow. 

Pope Francis, prior to his papacy, was an Archbishop in Argentina. Here, he urged priests to become accepting of civil unions for gay couples- to keep them away from using the word "marriage." 

Similarly, delving deeper into his past statements, he has continued to denounce gay marriage and adoption. I admit, I will be interested to see if the gay adoption piece, at the very least, holds. 

Now, my personal opinion is that no Pope will ever allow gay marriage sanctity within the church. It's possible that with enough time one will finally end the religious bashing of legal marriages- but will still never condone it within the church. 

Gay adoption, however, will probably be fixed. Eventually, the Church will have to cave into the peer pressure of science and acknowledge that being gay is not a choice (even if it was- free will people). A Pope- hopefully Francis but rather unlikely- will have to acknowledge that it can be a loving environment for a child that could otherwise have been lost in the system and ended up so much worse than having two moms or dads. 

Even the phrasing- singling out gay priests and those who seek God. It's concerning that he would do that; because it still means there are people out there we are not to accept as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Worse yet, as our brothers and sisters in humanity. 

I'm afraid that the Pope is the ultimate politician. That he knows exactly what he needs to say and when he needs to say it to cover his ass on his "views."

I miss the days of JPII where he was just a sincere man with a love for people. He was the only thing that has ever been able to redeem the Catholic church. Yes, he had his bigoted views and he was far from perfect. But I like to think that, were he still Pope, he would have found that he was was bigoted and would have tried to reconcile those problems- and he was popular enough both within and out of the church that he could have done it. 

So, congratulations Pope Francis, I hope you meant what you said and continue to use your influence to make Catholics a little more bearable for the other 5.8 billion people out there. 

Well...that was short-lived

Thanks, Rick Perry. You're a douchebag who can't take a hint. Enjoy the hate mail from the thousands of constituents you have pissed off- either due to the special session or the tax dollars you're wasting.

No love,
Me

Proud to be an American

Wow, this is the first time I haven't had to rant on here! I actually get to be excited that I'm from the U.S. and enjoy my fellow citizens.

In a 12-hour period, the Democratic party managed to shut down an extreme abortion bill in Texas, and the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.

Just...I'm so excited right now. Senator Wendy Davis- you are an amazing woman. She spoke for 10 straight hours, reciting letters, testimonies, and her own story. She did this to block a vote on Senate Bill 5- banning abortions after 20 weeks.

There are other serious implications of this bill- the most dangerous implication being that abortions are nearly entirely defined by their medical necessity at all stages of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, it's possible for the governor (Rick Perry- you remember him, right? The guy who said that you don't need to go to church every Sunday to know there's something wrong when gays can openly serve in the military.) to call another special session to get the vote through. It also seems highly likely as their vote was only three minutes past the deadline.

But really, Mr. Governor, don't do that. You are already an embarrassment to politics, and to call another special session when 400+ protesters cried out to prevent a vote would only make it worse. Call it underhanded, or whatever- this is way politics should be. The voice of the people, not politicians who do what they think will get them re-elected.

(That's an interesting thought, isn't it? We elect officials to make decisions based on our views and needs, but they are terribly self-serving because their job is on the line. Too bad, that.)

And then DOMA, ah, your reign ends. As my cousin pointed out, this does little to solve a large part of the problem- that same sex marriages don't have the same reciprocity that "traditional" marriages do; thus negating federal recognition as well. I agree, but I still believe this is a huge step.

As DOMA had been backed by both Democrats and Republicans, I believe it finally being overturned is the mark that the our federal level of legislators will soon stand behind the judgment of the Supreme Court in recognizing that they are still persecuting Americans.

So, obviously there are positive and negative points to these victories.

Even President Obama had kind of a rough week in my mind. I mean, kudos to him for being mindful of carbon emissions, but I'm a little ashamed that he would be so short-sighted.

Greenhouse gases are an extremely pressing matter, we recently reached a point often considered to be "the point of no return." A sustained measure of 400ppm globally would take so long to clear out that we would, ultimately, be doomed- and some regions are already there.

However, GHGs are not the only environmental issue. The fact that Obama is okay building the Keystone Pipeline should it not cause significant carbon pollution is extremely short-sighted. I understand, economically it makes sense, it should have been done years ago. But when the President condones fracking and other invasive, harmful techniques for the sake of industry, we need to take a step back and consider what we're really willing to trade. We need to regulate the carbon emissions problem, but remember- water is a precious limited resource as well.

Anyway, good job America. I really hope these decisions and actions are upheld.

Not All Tears are an Evil

Tuesday, I received the exciting news that Minnesota- my beloved home state- would be putting marriage equality on the line once more. I was more than pleased to hear that this year's session of the Minnesota Legislature would end on a distinctly more upbeat way than the last.

Today, May 9 2013, one year after President Obama decided to publicly support the equal rights campaign, the Minnesota House of Representatives brought us one step closer to being the progressive state we've come to be known as.

Though it may be premature- with the Senate and Governor still ahead as potential obstacles- I can't help but be excited for Monday when I get to celebrate as part of the 12th state to stand up for marriage equality.

This time two years ago, I was appalled that the legislature approved a vote on an amendment to the State's constitution to forever bar this from happening. Last November, Minnesotans spoke out with a resounding "no."

With the disappointment I've felt over North Dakota the last couple of months, I feel like we all needed this. Not that Delaware wasn't exciting, but to have my state sticking up for what's right...honestly it's brought tears to my eyes.

With so many terrible things that happen in politics, this is just a great reminder that we can still depend on our representatives...at least at a state level!

Really, North Dakota?

For about a week and a half now my friends and I have been lamenting our unfortunate ties to the State of North Dakota. We're not entirely sure what they're thinking, but my current guess is that they want the next Pope to be from their state.

Recently, the North Dakota legislature decided it was time to show just how extremely conservative they can be. Their primary target: abortion. (I guess watching Minnesotans stand up for gay marriage this past November made them pick a  "less controversial" topic?)

Here's the gist of what has been proposed:
No abortion based on genetic defects,
No abortion based on gender selection,
No abortion if conceived during rape- even if it's the product of incest,
No abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected (that's approximately 6 weeks into pregnancy)

And, the two most disturbing outcomes:
Defining life as beginning at conception,
Shutting down the Red River Women's Clinic due to restrictions placed on who may perform abortions.

Now, having been raised Catholic, I get it- I've heard all the anti-abortion propaganda you can imagine. I can understand why life beginning at conception is such an appealing notion, and why I should be so morally opposed to the idea of ending a life.

But let's be serious here- I don't want any of this crap legalized. Well, that's a lie; in the interest of being totally honest if the gender selection one went through I wouldn't be upset and I'm not going to try to justify that. Everything else, though, I wish I had numbers on hand because I don't want to sound like I'm making things up.

Banning an abortion a woman decided on due to the detection of genetic defects is imposing a ridiculous expectation on that person. Normal children are costly, time-consuming, and require a level of maturity for a parent to raise them. A child with special needs requires more from each of those categories. If that person is not capable of being the type of parent or providing the care that child would need, the state better plan to take up those responsibilities itself. Some people are not up to the task, and will not be able to "rise to the occasion," and to require them to do so can destroy the rest of their life.

I don't mean to sound like children with genetic defects ruin lives- everyone I know raising a child affected in some way wouldn't have it any other way. But they do require more work, more money, and more time- and many people cannot provide those things.

Of course they had to touch on rape a little bit in this. Because they must be of the mindset that "women are asking for it" and that our bodies can "shut everything down" during a "legitimate rape." I just...I can't believe the amount of stupid that exists in government. Biology is biology is biology. They have as much chance of conceiving during rape that they do during consensual sex. Because it's still sex. Did they miss that day in health class? Did they miss the part where an estimated half of rapes don't get reported because these women feel ashamed- and any byproduct of that could intensify that shame?

I admit- I'm a bit surprised that last one includes incest...why is this super conservative state defending incest, of all things?

Then we have this- banning any abortions once a heartbeat can be detected. Now, I have never been pregnant, but my understanding is that it is very easy for a woman to not know she's pregnant for a few months. Not everyone tracks their period as closely as they should (myself included), not everyone get morning sickness, cravings are circumstantial, and weight gain isn't terribly drastic for some, and definitely not in the first trimester. Fact is- six weeks is an absurd cut off.

This particular ban also has a physically invasive aspect- a transvaginal ultrasound. So, not only are they forced to deal with the reality of having a child they didn't plan, and possibly don't want, they have to be physically uncomfortable to have that verdict reached.

Now, if abortion is to continue existing, of course I want it to be as safe as possible. I'm okay with wanting licensed physicians to perform what can be a dangerous procedure. However, to have the stipulation be that they have admitting rights to a hospital within 30 miles of the facility? North Dakota's one abortion clinic is in a city where one of the hospitals is affiliated with Christianity...how is that going to work? Obvious North Dakota is obvious.

As stated, I was raised a Catholic. I do believe children are a gift, and that we should do everything we can to keep them around, alive and healthy. But why is the state protecting nonviable clusters of cells over the rights of adults? I guess they still get some props for keeping the mother's life in mind (but only if that life is in jeopardy by physical definition).

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not overly disturbed by the idea of having the cutoff mark be at viability. If the fetus can survive outside of the mother, I don't see why that shouldn't be done. But to require a woman to live with a parasite she either doesn't want, can't sustain, or doesn't want to watch suffer is downright foolish.