This isn’t high school people

Lauren Hollister – I was privileged to miss out on this little bit of drama earlier today otherwise I probably would have gone into some sort of flaming rage.  Band in itself is full of drama, I don’t think it’s unique to any other club or organization as far as the amount it has, but being in it exposes me to it just about every day.  And looking back on it, this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.  But anyway, it basically happened like this.  Some guy takes some other girl’s music stand.  When she asks for it back he pulls “seniority” by saying that since he’s a senior and she’s a freshman he gets first choice of stands.  I guess it must be really difficult to walk the extra 5 or so feet to go grab one off the wrack, especially for someone as dignified and wise as this so-called “senior”.  The girl, incredibly, was the mature one in this situation and didn’t try to pursue any sort of argument, nor did she do anything like shoving his stuff off her stand and taking it back (which I probably would’ve done).  But seriously, who does that?  Who actually pulls seniority in college of all places?  As if high isn’t ridiculous enough, you have to bring stupid high school attitudes and traditions to college.  What’s even worse is it’s some guy in his 4th year of college, it’s not like he’s some freshman just out of high school, trying to pull seniority on a person just because she hasn’t been in college as long.  Who does that?  We might as well bring back all the high school hazing stunts if we’re going to start pulling seniority on freshmen and sophomores just because we are too lazy to do something ourselves.  Whatever, it just bugs the hell out of me that people actually behave this way still.  Grow up!

What have we learned?

DAVID WHITESOCK — From all the “debate” on the abortion issue over the last week or so, what have we been able to parse out and learn? Anything? I don’t know about you, but I haven’t really learned much. It’s a topic which comes tandem with lighting bolts, and all that seems to happen is that everyone goes back to their corners, saliva dripping from there mouths still wild with fury.

A few things I do know. Angie Buhl and I disagree, but her form of argument is to insult and not necessarily debate. Kelsey Collier-Wise, who is extremely intelligent and whom I greatly respect, took me to task, and obviously we do not agree either, but at the end of that sparring I feel like we’ve essentially agreed to disagree. And, there are more than two sides to this issue. However, most don’t see it that way.

I re-read through many of the comments on Brian’s column and the comments on the blog here, and at the end I was simply tired. It is a very demanding issue. But, before I went to bed last night, I pulled up some late night reading, the Supreme Court opinion in Roe V. Wade. One passage in particular from Justice White’s, albeit short dissent, sums up my opinion on the matter, and I will leave it at that, but I do suggest everyone read the full opinion of the Court, so that we are all on the same page regarding where the courts really are with abortion.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

The abortion debate…

DAVID WHITESOCK — Because I have been called out, more than once, in the comments section of Brian Broekemeier’s column, “Please, have the kid, we’ll deal with it,” I thought it appropriate to explain why I decided to let the column run as it was submitted to me.

There seems to be an odd assumption that when someone; columnist, blogger, whomever, writes about abortion, that something new will be said or that everyone will just agree and that as that. Obviously this is never the case, so when writers do decide to stand upon this third rail, they play it safe, usually discussing policy positions or the latest in legal nuances from state to state.

Yawn. (except for the legal nuances… I’m a nerd)

Brian told me he was writing something up about abortion, and immediately I said “great!” From what I know of Brian’s writing to this point, it happens to be sarcastic, witty, and oftentimes satirical. This piece isn’t a direct satire, but it is witty and certainly sarcastic.

What he believes on the issue is irrelevant. I do not know his position on abortion, and frankly, I don’t care. What I do know, is that when I finished reading the piece, the only thought in my mind was, “huh, why isn’t there more talk about responsibility?”

We tend to merely discuss this issue down a woman’s right to chose or a religiously wrong line. Sure, those are the two sides, but let’s put religion aside and simply examine what is morality. You do not need to be of faith or subscribe to any such religion to be a moral person. As humans, we have set natural moral laws. These laws are basic. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. And, of course, there is the golden rule of treat others how you wish to be treated. Follow these fundamental rules and civilization could be good.

What has happened along the way, however, is we have confused liberty and freedom with a right to do whatever we want — this is so remarkably contrary to the idea of personal freedom, it is laughable. If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.

(Consider that this commentary is coming from a Libertarian!)

We all have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — this begins at the very beginning, does it not? Pro-choicers extend their philosophy based on these words scripted in the Declaration of Independence, but I guarantee if you asked Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin (Locke, Bacon, Hobbes from years before too) their thoughts on this matter, they would suggest that you have bastardized their meaning of freedom and liberty.

Last night while at the Political Science Awards Banquet, Matt Michaels, former South Dakota House of Representatives Speaker, gave a keynote address on public service, but more so on service to others. He said a number of times that governments cannot hug you, kiss you, wipe away your tears or even solve your problems. People do these things. Yet, this is what we have attempted to have our governments do, from the local level all they way up to the federal level.

You want the government to take care of you when you make a mistake. Well, that thinking is the mistake. You err, and you must deal with it. Government is merely a means for securing the very basic and fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is there to secure life.

If you, and the individual you tango with, make a mistake and a pregnancy ensues, then it is not government which is meant to solve this issue for you — it is you, your partner, your family, and your community (i.e., church, neighborhood, etc.).

The debate which has been taking place in South Dakota for the last few years has been about the exceptions to the abortion law — those exceptions being rape, incest, and harm to the mother’s life. All of these instances of protection are proper and constitutional, not to mention morally correct. This is government acting within the natural law bounds set forth by Jefferson in the Declaration and carried out through the Constitution.

We have the freedom to do what we will to our bodies, consume alcohol or drugs, eat 18 cheeseburgers, pierce our unmentionables, whatever, but morally, the taking of our life or the taking of a life inside of us, is inhuman on every level — not just a religious one.

I let Brian’s column run because this is the debate I hoped would be had. I hoped a debate about morals and responsibility would come of it. We all have a responsibility for our own actions. If a man decides that he is going to not live up to his end of the bargain, then those around the woman need to step up and help her out — not some uncaring and unfeeling government program — but actual people who can hug and cry. As much as Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” phrase makes me want to projectile vomit, when the shit hits the fan with our family and friends, the village better step up to the plate, because that is how it is done, that is how we move forward, and that is how we know that when it is us who needs help, it will be there.

Making New Friends via the Internet

KELSEY COLLIER-WISE — If you can believe it, I’ve never received any abortion-related hate mail before. Until today!

From: Aaron Helseth <ahelseth3@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Subject: Abortion article

Nice incoherent nonsensical article baby killer. Thankfully your a lesbian and can’t have babies so you won’t be able to kill any of your own at least. Thank you for exercising your choice to be stupid.

I just know I wouldn’t have gotten this kind of reaction if Dave would’ve let me go with my original title, “Like Groundhogs Day, But With Less Bill Murray and More Abortion.” Who doesn’t crack a smile when they think of that movie?

Anyway, the mention of “exercising your choice to be stupid” made me think of something that I just had to share with all of you. Mashed potatoes can be your friend! Enjoy!

Gay marriage and you

DAVID WHITESOCK — Looks like this is what the Opinion Blog is going to become, a back and forth between Matt Hittle and I. Both of us are libertarian in philosophy, but as issues get parsed out, I’m coming to realize that we are on extreme ends of the libertarian spectrum.

Take his recent web column on gay marriage for instance.

Matt is almost there. He gets on that gay marriage-libertarian road, but takes the exit right before suggesting an actually solution to the issue. This is no fault of Matt’s per se, it just happens to be the way political discourse goes in this country.

What needs to be addresses, which both comments on the article touch on, is this notion that marriage is a “right.” No, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, a luxury, an extra-curricular choice to life, if you will.

The problem with the gay marriage debate is we have all seemed to zip past what the proper place of marriage is in a political society, especially ours, and what is its definition.

I think we should all agree that marriage is, and for a long time has been, an institution of organized religion. Unfortunately, the United States government has bastardized the institution and made it a function of our tax code. Which creates the problem.

Like it or not, the connotation with the word marriage is a union between man and woman under the auspices of religion. Why should there be any change in this definition? Organized religion is a greater sham on people than governments are, but marriage belongs to that realm, so be it.

Governments, particularly the U.S. government, recognized at some point, that the institution of marriage could be a viable political football. It was recognized that the segment of the population which was married was a large one, and in order to keep this group of voters happy, maybe there should be incentives within the tax code for entering into this “moderately stable institution.” And eureka, tax credits for married folks were created.

The problem with this, however, is that if we agree that marriage is a religious institution, then the meddling of government in this sphere is not necessarily proper. I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court on the separation of church and state and the banning of all (or most) religious functions from public schools and such, which has been an extreme misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s original intent in his “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It may begin to appear that I am stepping on my own toes with this argument, but hear me out. Jefferson’s main concern with religion and government was merely the fear that the government would sanction one form of religion or another and enforce that religion upon the people. The involvement of religion, generally, within the government is not necessarily a bad thing, and I presume Jefferson would agree.

However, regarding marriage, government has chosen to benefit a certain group of people over another, when such a benefit is not at all necessary. Having a marriage tax credit or exception within our tax code could be done away with and this issue in relation to gay marriage would be solved.

There is another layer to this issue which essentially clouds the whole debate. Because marriage between a man and a woman is “sanctioned” by the federal government through the tax code, states have taken that lead and extended other benefits or legal protections. These legal protections do not extend to unmarried couples nor gay couples… but gay couples feel the burning desire to have access to those protections. That is understandable, but as the system is set up currently, only marriages are recognized.

What many states have chosen to do is to allow for these legal protections to be extended through civil unions. Not only does this feeble attempt at a solution not solve anything, it makes the problem between federal and state law even more muddy. Because the federal government has made marriage a part of its purview, they now feel that civil unions established by the states are an infringement on their Constitutional powers.

Here, the federal government (as is mostly the case) is wrong and the states are right.

The federal government never should have sanctioned marriage through the tax code, that was an unconstitutional move. The federal government cannot create a so-called ban on gay marriage. It doesn’t exist. What the states can do, however, and Jefferson would agree, is create for themselves a civil union law which would be the measure for all couples — male/female, male/male, female/female — who wish to enter into a contractual partnership for certain legal protections. This is what should be offered to all people.

Government, both state and federal need to wipe marriage exceptions from their tax and legal code. Marriage must be returned to the sanctuary for which it belongs — religion — and governments could concentrate on establishing a legal framework which would answer all the problems relating to living wills, power of attorney, property rights, etc.

This is a long post, but this issue always gets short-shrift, which does the debate more harm than good.

A disagreement with David

MATT HITTLE — I read David’s post about the woman at the center of the Wal-Mart litigation. I disagree that Wal-Mart is acting deplorably.

The woman signed a contract and, according to the article, failed to read the fine print. Is it Wal-Mart’s duty to make sure she understands a contract before she signs it? No. It’s her problem. If this weren’t such an emotionally-charged situation, it wouldn’t have even made the local news. Everyone’s getting bent out of shape over this because she’s permanently disabled.

This may sound very cold, but she signed the contract. It is within Wal-Mart’s legal rights to act on the contract.

Dear T-Liggs,

MATT HITTLE — I just read the first sentence of your most recent comment on our website.

For the good of humanity, quit posting.

Sincerely, 

Matt

What’s that sound?

DAVID WHITESOCK — Flip-flops. The unbelievably annoying sound of spring is back. Yes, the click-clack of flip-flops are everywhere, despite the temperature still in the 30’s and 40’s, droves of Margaritaville wannabes see sun and automatically assume warmth and therefore break out the flip-flops.

It is not only the clip-clop that irritates my core, but the fact that no one any longer has the ability to lift their feet, which adds to the barrage of noise that penetrates my being.

Only 4 more weeks left… I can stay sane, can’t I?