A constantly replicating problem for me during debates I have with people regarding the American political process centers around the notion of rights and what they mean to us.  There are many individuals who ironically refer to themselves as libertarians, who somehow believe that human rights are limited only to those things spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Besides being blatantly wrong by the very words of the Constitution itself (Amendment IX), it fails to account for the fact that humanity exists beyond the borders of the United States.

To hear some of these people discuss human rights, you would think that they believe that the other nations of the world are populated by barely communicative animals, or that Americans are the only humans that matter and that if Americans do not declare their claim on a human right through the amendment process, then such a human right does not exist.

The sad fact is that Americans have allowed their sense of human rights to be subverted by an extremely narrow conceptualization– that human rights are only those things that the government explicitly sets aside for the citizenry, and that no other rights exist.  Further, that human rights are absolute and never increase with time and the advancement of new technologies.  This is a mindset frozen in time, that what was true in the 18th Century is true for all time.

I reject this notion.  I believe that the advancement of time and technology advances the human condition, or at the very least, it should.  That as we gain more knowledge as a species, that this knowledge should serve us.  The application of this knowledge should help us not just gain new knowledge and create new products and utilities, but also to unlock greater potential in our lives.

One such area that I believe this is appropriate is in the understanding of health care as a human right.  At the time of the signing of the Constitution of the United States, medicine was a completely different animal.  A little less than 10 years after the signing, the concept of vaccination would become cutting-edge medicine.  Ambulances didn’t exist.  Prior to 1880, almost 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, it was not even known that diseases were transmitted by bacteria.  The idea that the framers would even have medicine or health care on their mind was laughable, because they were still using leeches and cutting people to help even out their ‘humours’.  At the time, medicine was much less of a science than it is today– you’d be equally as likely to call a priest as call a doctor back then, because they had roughly the same success rate.

Time has passed, technology has advanced, medicine has evolved.  The rest of the industrialized world, and a good share of the developing world, now acknowledge that access to health care is a human right.  To them, it is as basic as the ability to get fair representation at trial, or to be able to choose what faith you have, to be able to speak your mind and to be able to live without fear of unreasonable search and seizure.  The reason why is that these nations have accepted a different view on the nature of the human condition– that is, that every person has intrinsic value, that if given the chance to flourish, this value will be added to the rest of society.

As well, there’s an understanding of that value as being much more three-dimensional– that value cannot be measured along a single scale of productivity or monetary gain, but rather that some people contribute to society their creativity, their wisdom, their kindness, their good humor, their friendliness or any number of diverse human qualities which make life that much better.

These nations developed this perspective through a combination of hardships:  War, Famine, Poverty, and the tyranny of Totalitarianism.  Through the regimes of Nazi Germany, Falange Espanola, Italian Fascism, the DDR, Stalinist Russia and many others, they’ve seen where a one-dimensional perspective of human value will eventually end and thus they’ve rejected that path in favor of one better suited towards the embracing of the vitality of human experience.  They suffered the ravages of war in its fullest, seeing the horror not from heroically framed newsreels, but from the windows of their own homes (if they were fortunate enough to still have one).

This differs from the American experience of these times.  Americans were sheltered far from the effects of those twisted regimes, save for the few who had relatives who lived in those nations or the soldiers who fought to defeat them.  Americans received censored and limited views of the horrors of World War.  However, this does not account for the entirety of why Americans seem so incredibly different in perspective and culture; there is a great deal to be said about the origins of “American Culture” or even the question of whether such a culture even exists (not meant as an insult, but rather a questioning of whether it would better be referred to as “Straight White Middle-class American Culture”).  It does provide one with valuable insight into why there is such a massive divergence between, say, Americans and the British, despite a shared cultural background.

In addition to the advancement of time and history having an effect on how societies view human rights, there is the question of how technology has altered this perception.  With medicine becoming a highly specialized and specified discipline comes the understanding that it is an extremely important part of life.  In order to gain the maximum value and the maximum quantity of life, one must secure adequate health care.  Since all people profit when everyone is capable of flourishing into their greatest potential, it is considered a human right of the same standing as a right to a basic education or police protection

Of course, some do not even see basic education as a right, and some others do not even see police protection as a right– these people believe it should all be privatized and we should all be forced to pay on an individual basis for these needs.  Besides neglecting the value of working within the context of economies of scale, the potential that can be unlocked through collective action, and the simplicity that can be provided when these rights are held by all rather than only those that can afford them, there’s the question about how such policies widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and how they lead to the decline of the middle class, feeding into the reversion of democratic society into oligarchy or even a full collapse into feudalism, with the wealthiest controlling all the land and everyone else being forced to work for next to nothing just to pay exorbitant rents.

People of a libertarian or conservative stripe seem to not grasp that there was a time prior to now where there WAS less regulation and these things WERE privatized, and they did not work.  Or at least they didn’t “work” for the majority of people, and thus they were changed from solely private to a system where there was a public option everyone could use, and if one so chose, private options still existed.  Regulations were imposed because the so-called “free market” failed to police itself as people today claim it would.  Of course, if you point out this fact, they will say that it didn’t work because it wasn’t FREE ENOUGH.  I don’t know if these people quite understand that we’ve tried things their way before– there’s a reason Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, and it wasn’t because the government was overly involved in the meatpacking industry.

With the advent of MRIs and other high-tech (and high-expense) medical equipment, the potential exists to prolong life and fight death.  The question is, how do we decide who gets to take advantage of this great potential; those who make the most, or those who need it the most?  Do we prioritize medical care only for those whose wallets are fat enough or whose bank accounts are hefty enough, or do we prioritize it towards those who will benefit the most from it?  Fact of the matter is, regardless of however the health care system is aligned, rich people will always be able to get what medical care they want.  We need to concern ourselves with the people who can’t get any health care, or for those who health care costs constitute a constant threat to their ability to support their families through the high rate of medical bankruptcy.

We do this by doing what we’ve done with libraries, the police, the fire department, the schools and many other parts of our daily lives which we take for granted.  Libraries in the U.S. are top-notch and provide an excellent service with taxpayer money– indeed, it is the clearest example of socialized anything in American life, as taxpayer funds are used to literally buy a private good and offer it up to the public at no cost (save for fines for abusing the privilege by damaging the books or for holding them longer than the assigned period).  The police actually do a very good job in the U.S.: indeed, if anything can be said about them, it is that they are TOO productive, as the percentage of the population currently incarcerated exceeds the levels of those in totalitarian regimes due to the Drug War.  Fire Departments do an excellent job, and they never hand you a bill when they put out a fire– indeed, paying your taxes is enough, and few people bitch about it (those that do are certifiable whackjobs).  And finally, while some argue that public schools are failing, I’ve found that for those who wish to learn, the system does a good job– besides, you can lead a kid to knowledge, but you can’t make him learn.  The people who complain about public schools the most are often the ones who apparently paid the least attention while in school themselves.

Regardless, the object of human society and civilization should be towards the improvement of its members– or rather, what is the point of even having a society or civilization, if its benefits are reserved for a limited chosen few?  Why bother advancing science and technology, if the fruits of its bounty are set aside only for those few who already enjoy a great standard of living?  Finally, why bother even continue to exist as a species, if we refuse to act like it– if we act like every other man is competition, rather than an ally?

” I would like to support your trip…and you…,but I need to know your beliefs. I am neither party either.”

This is my response:

“Put very simply, I believe that we as human beings all deserve the best healthcare we can get, and that if our government can so easily find money for tanks, bombs, bailouts and bridges to nowhere, then it can find the money to ensure that no one in this country dies because they lacked for funds.

I believe that being sick, injured or wracked with pain is hard enough without having to wonder if you can afford to get the help you need to make what is hurting you stop.  If you’ve ever had even something as common as strep throat, let alone something as horrific as cancer or AIDS, then you must remember how hard it was just to get through the pain to say hello to someone you love– this condition should not be worstened by the conditions we set for ourselves as human beings.

So, I want to fight for us all to begin taking the steps we need to set new conditions for ourselves as people.  I want to ask that we get some reform to put us on the right track towards the goal of ensuring that if a person goes to a hospital and cries out for help, that the doctor or nurse who hears that cry will need not check with a hospital administrator or an insurance clerk before he or she can take that persons hand to lead them to the road to wellness.

So, I support passing a public option, I support reforming how we handle medical records (improving this will reduce costs and improve continuity of care), I support eventually moving to a universal system that works as easily as going to a doctor’s office or hospital and saying your name and what is wrong before getting help.  I know it might sound insane, but if we can put people on the moon, if we can transmit the entire contents of the library of congress across the world in the blink of an eye through the internet, and if we can come together as a nation against common corporeal foes like Nazis and terrorists and all that we’ve faced before together, then we can make this happen if we really want it.

- Cass”

So, with that in mind, I’m going to do what I can.  As soon as I have enough money to get to D.C., I’m going to drop EVERYTHING and make my way to the Capitol building and find me the nearest ear of the nearest congressman, senator, cabinet member, page or even the President to make these people heard.  If you feel like donating, I’ve set up a paypal account through which all funds for this are going to flow.  Once it’s over with, I’ll offer up a full accounting of every penny spent, so you know this isn’t just some scam or weirdo thing.  I’ll live cheaply while I’m doing this– I’ve dumpster dove and I shop at salvage stores and thrift shops, I’m not the kind of person to waste other people’s money.  I’m packing canned food and ramen to eat, I’ve got hotel points donated from a friend for the place to stay, I just need gas money, bus fare or plane tickets to get up there.

If you’re with me, click this link, and please donate anything that you feel like you can:  Donate

Right now, I’ve got $3.58 in the account that I’ve ponied up for myself.  I’m scraping pennies and dimes off the floor as you read this to get the change together to continue this.  I’m thinking I need about $500 or so to make the trip.  So, that’s about $3.58 down, and about $496.42 left.  Every bit will help, just a dollar or two, from a couple hundred people can make this happen.  It’s a crazy dream, maybe, but wouldn’t it be kind of cool if it works?

This is my third year working for The West Georgian, the student newspaper for this university.  I’ve been a staff writer and an Ombudsman (abuse sponge) and worked hard because I believe in the mission of our paper:  To provide news to the students and to provide a venue in which students can get experience delivering the news.

Well, this summer I worked with the paper by going to meetings and defending our budget from being rescinded, and we succeeded in getting what we needed to continue.  Unfortunately, we still had not filled the position of Sports Editor.  As fall semester drew closer and closer, I became more aware of this vacancy and what it would mean.  This is supposed to be our banner year at this university and its athletics department, and no sports editor would compromise sports coverage and drag down the school’s big year.  Someone had to step up.

I had been pushing aside the idea of working as an editor in the paper because I didn’t want to be locked into a responsibility I couldn’t back down from.  However, one thing my father instilled in me is the courage to stand up when duty calls, to accept the responsibility when it is needed.  So I decided to apply to be the sports editor.

Now, before I go on, I don’t have some lofty delusion of grandeur in play here that’s driven me to make this post or talk up my job.  It’s a simple job, cover sports events, make sure there are photographers and writers for different things and generally make everyone aware of whats going on in the field.  When you work this kind of job, if you’re doing things right, people shouldn’t notice you’ve done anything at all.  I don’t hold myself up as some keystone for the university’s success, I just saw the job as one that needed doing.  And so here I am.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about football, soccer or volleyball.  I barely know the basics of basketball, and I have no idea what’s going on in golf.  Now, admittedly, when it comes to baseball and softball, I am an expert.  Otherwise, I’m a bit of a goof.  So I have to come up with a simple formula:

1)  Write the Lead-  Who did what, when, where, why and how?  Example:  “The University of West Georgia Wolves [took on/rumbled with/fought/other militaristic or pugilistic verb here] [Such and so team] at [Location] this [Day], [walking away with the win/but could not secure the win] and [won/lost] at [Score].”

2)  Quote the coach:  Coaches usually have some interesting way of putting things, talk to them for about 3-4 minutes and you’ll get something that you can put in there usually.  Sometimes you may have to paraphrase, however, if you are worried about being concise.

3)  Note the big moves.  Score?  Cool!  Write it.  Interception?  Write it!  Big punt return?  WRITE IT!  Pretty much just try to explain how the score got to where it was, and explain why the score didn’t get where it could be.

It’s that simple.  It’s not brain science or rocket surgery.  Sports are important, though, and even I tend to underestimate their relevance.  The thing about sports is that what happens on the field is a corporeal representation of the human struggle to achieve and overcome.  By breaking through obstacles and testing our limits, we exemplify who we are as people.  That’s why sports matter; the things we do all day to achieve our own success is represented on the field.

Sometimes, you fight against other people who oppose you, sometimes your obstacles are within yourself, and you must overcome your own limits and push towards greater glory.  Sometimes the problem is the team, you find out who is having trouble, and you get his back, strengthen him up, and help him make the big play.  It’s a bit of a cliche to say that life is a sport, but it is quite the apropos metaphor.  The reason sports are so captivating as a spectacle is because the lessons learned on the field are so applicable to our lives.

We see in the sweaty faces of the volleyball player our own fierce spirit to go on.

In the grass-stained uniform of the football player, we see the falls we’ve suffered, but more importantly, we see that we got up afterwards.

We see in the bloodied face of the hockey player, the life that we fight for every day against incredible odds.

In the bruises of the soccer player, we see the wounds we’ve licked and carried even as we triumphed.

We see the dirt on the faces of the softball and baseball players and we’re reminded that sometimes you must get a little dirty to get a job done.

In the eyes of the basketball player we see ourselves gazing towards our own goals, just out of reach if not for the last bit of effort to push through.

We gaze in awe of the force that the track and cross-country athletes bring to bear, pushing to break not just their own limits, but the limits of human achievement itself and enduring through it all.

And even in the crisp collars of golfers, we see the resolve to keep grace under pressure and remember our own trials.

Sports matter because we all matter.  We all hunger for that moment, for that victory.  Even when you lose, you can’t be defeated when you give it every ounce and every mote of effort.  And that’s the real lesson you get from sports.

Dances With Wolves

Wow.  I…uhh.. hate to admit this, but I almost forgot about this site!  Shocking, I know.  I’ve been up to my eyeballs in schoolwork, newspaper stuff, club stuff, and on top of all of that, I got pneumonia!  So, now, I’m recovered and back to 100%.

And then I realize I’ve got a “Fort Sedgewick” situation.

If you’re one of the three or maybe four educated people on this planet who hasn’t seen Dances With Wolves, you have no idea what I’m talking about.  In the film, Kevin Costner’s character (Lieutenant Dunbar) gets a pick of his assignment and seeks out the furthest fort he can get:  Fort Sedgewick.  When he arrives, the place is in poor repair, the men have fled and the water supply has been ruined.  Essentially, the place went to crap.

So, Dunbar takes it upon himself to fix the place up and so he does.  He makes it a suitable place to live again, out on the frontier.  Well, I’m about at that point.  I’ve got to take it upon myself to fix this blog back up and make it a suitable place to read again.  I’m going to try to fit it in my schedule, which is packed, since I’m preparing to graduate within the year, and so I’m rushing headlong into a jampacked schedule.  In addition, I was promoted to Sports Editor for The West Georgian newspaper and I’m pretty happy with that, but it does take some of my time as well.  So, I’ve got to go to class, go to games, write for class, write about games, and then, somewhere in here, learn Japanese and create compelling material.

This is no small task.

But at least now you don’t have to sit around all day wondering, “Now why don’t she write?”

Yes, certainly individuals with that bent towards social liberty in America tend to regard firearms with a negative attitude.  However, this isn’t the rule; I believe in compassion for all human life, and so I favor programs and approaches towards life that maximize the care we render towards others in order to minimize suffering.  Concordant to this, I believe that life is worth protecting and so when someone is endangered they should be equipped to defend themselves.  If they do not feel themselves to be competent enough, then someone who they trust who does feel capable should be equipped to defend the other if they so choose to.  There are always going to be dangers out there which may require an immediate, swift, and certain response– even if we do away with all violence between humans, there are still animals which react to human presence in dangerous ways.

Likewise, even if one does not feel that the odds are slim that one would need to defend themselves, it is still an empowering thing unto itself to be armed and prepared to respond whenever there is trouble.  It’s not for everyone, though, and I understand and respect people who choose not to have weapons in their home.  For myself, however, I believe that owning, training and using weapons in defense of myself and those I care about are a key part of my own personal philosophy and approach towards life.  I do not feel safe or pleased with the idea of relying on someone else to “save me”; I do not play the damsel in distress role very well.  I prefer to be an active part of my own life, and that includes ensuring my own security; for me, that means owning a rifle or pistol and knowing how to use it.

Firearms are a great equalizer: any adult can learn to use a firearm– now keep in mind, that’s different from saying any adult can learn to use ANY firearm.  Some weapons are, due to their size or ammunition load, not suitable for some people, and that’s alright.  The key, though, is that somewhere out there, is a firearm that is suitable for any adult; and that firearm can help make that person safer by ensuring that (with proper training) he or she is able to bridge the gap in physicality between his or her aggressor.  If an individual feels the need to protect themselves, they should be allowed to find a suitable small firearm to help in that task.  There is no wiggle room for me on this, save for the restrictions on individuals with demonstrable and documented mental illness or felony convictions (and even in these cases, I have no problem with non-violent felons having access).

Some people might consider this to be a bit too much; indeed, with more guns out there, there’s more possibility for trouble.  Untrained people with good intent wielding these powerful weapons can be more of a menace than at trained man with malice.  This is why I believe that firearms training should be a prerequisite to the ownership of any rifle, shotgun or handgun; I believe that if you have to be licensed to drive a car or operate a radio, you should have to be licensed to use a firearm, and that license should be kept up to date with continuing education and training.  We require people who save lives in medicine to continue educating themselves, we should require anyone operating a weapon to continue their education and become more proficient and safe with its use over time.

Again, though, it is worth noting that it is not for everyone to own and use a firearm.  Those who choose not to should be respected for that choice.  In return, those who choose not to should respect those who do own a firearm and take the use and maintenance of their weapon seriously.  The federal government  shouldn’t have much of a part in the decisions as to which small firearms are allowed and which are not– restrictions on automatics are understandable, but I do not believe the current ban is good policy.  State governments should also have minimal interference in these matters, leaving it to individual communities to decide how they feel about particular weapons.  I believe communities should have the power to restrict or ban specific weapon types, and that people should be aware of those regulations and make their decision as to which community they wish to live in based on that information.

So, that’s about how I feel on that matter… any comment for this gun nut?

So, while I apologize for the lack of content lately, please understand why I’ve not been updating.  I’ve not forgotten my loyal readers.

I have to say, to a certain degree, I agree with this.  Even if Card doesn’t use his fictional works as a platform for his political positions (at least not to the degree as Heinlein), fiction is a medium in which you have to accept an alternate set of events and settings from reality– you have to be able to trust the author in order to be entertained, much like you have to be able to believe the actors on a stage putting on a play.  If you go in knowing the guy is a nutball, it’s going to be hard to take the guy’s work seriously, unless you’re really good at compartmentalizing.

This is to say nothing of the fact that, even if you don’t buy the book, reading an author’s work offers a kind of acknowledgement in itself; by picking up the book, you are implicitly stating that you believe what this guy has to say is worth reading.  Most of the time, we don’t know the authors we read that well, but if you do, there’s nothing wrong with using what you know to determine what you’re going to read.  Lots of Anne Rice’s fans ditched after she converted, because they knew the chances were good that her new focus would not be compatible with their own interests.  Likewise, knowing Card makes homophobic statements and is openly hostile to you or your friends is useful information when you choose to read something.

As to the question of whether his writing is influenced by his personal and political opinions, I think that it’s probably impossible for him to keep the two truly separate.  The nature of the creative writing process necessitates that a person draw from their own world view and experience– you can’t just pull this stuff out of thin air.  When I write my stories, I have to use my own personal history to create the situations and people I write about; I have to use my personal perspective and opinions to give my stories direction and meaning.  In this same way, Card’s works might not explicitly call out gays as evil, but they are informed and shaped by a history and world view that does.

In the end, while I would hope anyone would open my books and read what I have to write, I do understand that some people who don’t like my message or background will probably eschew me in favor of writers who more closely resemble their own way of thinking.  I’m not advocating avoiding authors because you don’t disagree with them, but I think that it’s reasonable for someone to do so– after all, we only have so much time to live, only have so much time to enjoy only so many books.  However, it does remain to be stated, that if you do not derive enjoyment from a written work, play, song, game or any other creative endeavor, the only person who loses out is you; if you can’t find something positive about it, then you’re only shortchanging yourself.

Let me first say that  despite being as adamantly pro-choice as I am, I am not without sympathy to the other side of the equation.  Many of my friends take up that side and it’s extremely honorable when someone does with integrity and without hypocrisy.  The kinds of people I’m talking about in this camp are the ones who do listen to what I say, and respond in a level tone, never losing that friendliness that we are to have.  I have many friends who oppose abortion choice, and despite how I feel about the implications of that position, I don’t let it color my feelings for them.  I love my friends, especially the ones with passionate beliefs which they are willing to defend.

I admire the pro-life person who doesn’t just oppose abortion, but also stands against the death penalty and against needless wars of choice (or even all wars in general).  The consistency shown there is respectable, because it makes it known that the person really does have a true reverence for life and its potential.  That’s the ability to see even in the convict or the enemy, the potential for good that exists in all human beings, and really, that’s beautiful.

Likewise, I can totally understand the idea of seeing an unborn fetus as a child.  At even the earliest stages of pregnancy, a fetus can look like a little baby.  I personally love babies, a lot.  They’re just so cute and full of potential– being around a baby while they explore and examine the world is like rediscovering everything all over again along with them as they experience everything for the first time.  They provide beautiful insight into the world we live in by reminding us that (despite The Book of Ecclesiastes’ assertion that nothing is new under the sun– yes, everything that is and shall be once was and will be again; but if I’ve not seen it, it’s new to me) there’s still so much more to see out there.  Yeah, a baby can stink and puke and do all sorts of other things– so can a college student, but we don’t scorn them when they do their own ‘explorations’ and boundary-testing as much as our society seems to for babies.

I also dislike the concept and practice of late-term abortions.  I think everyone can agree that if we can avoid doing them, it’s best overall– there’s a disagreement over whether we can do them when it’s necessary, and even more disagreement over what defines ‘necessary’, but I think we can all safely say that if we could do away without the procedure without harming a single woman’s life or a single ancephalic baby, we’d do so in an instant.  The procedure is extremely horrid in its practice, I will grant that; there’s a reason so few doctors will perform it, besides the obvious danger posed by anti-abortion extremists.  Seriously, as pro-choice as I am, I do have a limit, and there are just some procedures that I’d like to know are being done only under the most extreme and grave circumstances.

I feel for the people who really do want to help women deal with the difficulties of pregnancy and prevent abortion through counseling them about their options.  I don’t like the people who try to give misleading information about abortion, but the people who are open and honest with women (and don’t treat them like little children who need to be lied to in order to act right) are good folks– I can imagine being young and pregnant can be a scary experience, since it has so much potential to change your life, and letting women know there’s nothing to fear and there’s so many safe roads to walk and that it’s not the end of the world is a great thing.

When people are outraged about the idea of casual abortion, I can definitely understand it.  It seems ridiculous.  We all hear the “I knew a guy/girl…” stories, we all hear about the woman who had three abortions a year every year, instead of buying birth control pills, IUD or condoms.  I doubt most of these tales, though I do know of two women through close associations who have had more than one or two in their life.  One case was a woman who wanted children but things always seemed to go wrong with the baby’s development (that would endanger her life and the fetus wouldn’t survive anyway), and she eventually had to give up after the third try.  The other was the stereotype, but not as severe as it gets made out to be; she had about four abortions in her life, all while she was too poor to take care of them but I definitely would’ve preferred she offer them for adoption (ultimately, though, I understand that it was her choice to make).

So, yeah, I can see the other side of things and appreciate where they’re coming from.  I’m not a hard partisan who refuses to even entertain the other point of view.  Despite what I said about “we can all agree about late-term abortion”, there are a few pro-choice folks out there who are seriously hard-line enough to argue that such abortions should be utterly unrestricted.  I disagree with this notion, but I understand the reasoning– if a woman’s life is in danger, with little time to act, the restrictions we place on the procedure that might save her life will actually kill her.  These folks aren’t arguing that women SHOULD get late-term abortions all the time, willy-nilly, but that safety of the mother must be the first priority, since she is already a fully living, breathing and thinking human being, where as the fetus is still a being of potential.  Policy, they may say, must be formulated first on preserving the rights of people whom can think, make decisions and communicate their intentions.

Further, many of the folks who argue against abortion choice are actually rational and decent people.  They have their beliefs, but they don’t feel a need to be forceful in their advancement of those beliefs– they use their words to further their goals and positions, and accept when the law goes against them (even if they don’t like it).  The only problem I have, and the only reason I ever get upset while talking to someone on this issue, is the level of misinformation out there and the hefty implications of anti-choice policy.

So, understanding this, why do I prefer to use terms like “anti-choice” when talking about these people?  Why do I perceive so many of them as having less-than-noble motivations for their policy preferences?  Why get so involved and emotional about something like this, when I’ll never have to face the issue myself (because I can’t get pregnant)?  What exactly IS my stake in the issue?  As the Joker put it, “Why so serious?”

Well, first, I use the term “anti-choice” only when talking about people who oppose abortion choice, but love to talk about invading every country that looks at us funny and love the death penalty.  These people don’t have a thing about life, they just want to lock down women’s choices.  This leads me to the next question; I see these people as having less-than-noble intentions because so many of their statements boil down to the idea of using forced birth as a punishment for promiscuous women.  They love to make statements about, “She should’ve kept her legs closed,” and “She should take personal responsibility for her actions,” or refer to abortion as an easy cop-out– I’ve never heard of a woman having easy abortions, even the one who’d had four wasn’t proud of herself and certainly didn’t talk about it in casual (let alone positive) terms.  They make it to be an issue of a lazy slut who deserves her comeuppance, and the best way to do it is to make her give birth.  Seriously, I ask this question again: if you don’t trust her to make a choice about her reproductive rights, why would you trust her to raise a child?  As well, there are many women out there who wish they could have children, many more than are out having abortions, to be sure– I’d rather see more efforts to allow more women to become capable of giving birth, including trans women, than see all this money pouring in to force women to give birth to babies they do not want.

I’m emotional about this, despite my inability to give birth, because reproductive rights is a core issue of women’s rights in general.  If a woman doesn’t have control over her body and her medical decisions, then what else really matters?  If women can be made to become unwilling baby birthers, there’s really no freedom that matters– oh, you can own property and vote, great, but if you can’t control your own body, what does it matter if you can control your property or put a ballot in a box?  You’re a prisoner in yourself, a slave to a state that intends to keep another being inside you regardless of how you feel about that– you’re a prisoner to the effects of pregnancy, including a requirement to be in a hospital or other place of medical care for several days in order to finally birth it.  Imagine if such a requirement were placed on men– have sex and carry a steadily increasing load around his waist for nine months and be subject to massive hormonal changes, then at the end of the nine months, he’s required to be confined to a room for several days while the load is removed and his body recovers– it would be an unheard of and unacceptable outrage; just imagine if you tried to take away men’s viagra whenever they were determined to be ‘irresponsible’.

My stake in the issue is basic human rights for women, nothing less.  I couldn’t care less about economic freedom if women are expected to be held down by the arbitrary constraints of religiously-based legislation (and nearly all the arguments I’ve ever heard against reproductive freedom are based some way on religion).  Not everyone shares your religion, and if you have to rely on it to justify your politics, then perhaps your politics could use some fresh consideration– we all have to live here, regardless of our spiritual views, and its no more right for a Baptist to force his faith through legislation on to an atheist, than it would be for a Muslim to force Sharia on that Baptist.  Majority rule is a matter of practicality, but not a justification of morality; no one can argue they are right only because they have enough people who agree with them, it’s a tautology– people believe they are right because other people agree with them that they are right because other people agree with them that they are right and so on.

Women must be allowed to have that minimal level of control over their bodies– they must be allowed to choose when and how they will give birth, and they must choose this before anyone else.  It is surprising to see so many conservatives, who argue constantly that no man has the right to demand that others work and provide to support his existence, but then argue that every fetus has the right to demand a woman do so for nine months.  It would be outrageous to imagine a man forced to have another man handcuffed to him for nine months and share all his food and drink with him, all while the other man can futz up his body chemistry and other things.  We would never allow this; but because it involves women bearing children, the thought is actually entertained and the policy to go with it is actually actively advanced through lots of funding.

Why am I so serious about it?  Because, it’s a serious matter; life and death, in some cases.  You see, as much as folks who like to portray abortion as something that women engage in casually (the “baby-killing feminist harpy” myth), it’s actually rare to find a woman who has had more than one, and even rarer to find one who doesn’t regret that she felt it was necessary.  For that woman, it was necessary; pregnancy has the power to change one’s life in no small way– these are radical changes that have long term health-related, economic and social effects.  We don’t really seem to think about it all that much, because it is a natural process.  However, even if it is natural doesn’t make it easy– viral and bacterial infection are natural processes, too, we take steps to manage them, because some can be beneficial and others can be harmful.

We have to break it down to a question of rights first, then we can also look at the practical measures necessary to balance the rights of women against the demands of society.  A pragmatic approach is necessary, and unfortunately for the side against reproductive freedom, few measures to restrict abortion choice are all that pragmatic while respecting women as human beings.  That’s why I am pro-choice.

(P.S.:  No disrespect meant by the title, I just label everything that’s “Part 2″ as “Electric Boogaloo”.  It just works too darn well.)

So, now I’ve got to speak on it, because this is kicking it into the field where my rage over things goes way beyond just the exasperated and exhausted, “You really don’t believe that, do you?” and fully into the territory of “OH NO YOU DIDN’T!”.  Oh yeah, they did.  They decided to sidetrack the health care reform debate with abortion.  The sleeping giantess Cassandra has been awoken on this issue and now I must rant.

First, let me say this:  I’m not a big fan of abortion as a procedure.  The idea of it is admittedly really creepy and yeah, I’ve seen my share of aborted fetus pictures.  If I could get pregnant, would I get an abortion if it happened?  No way, unless it was necessary to save my life, and even then I would take pause– it would be the toughest decision I could imagine making, because I’d love to have a child if I could.  Unfortunately, I can’t, and the choice is not mine to make.  That choice rests with the women out there right now who can, and rightly so.

Yes, the aborted fetus pictures are extremely gross and horrific to look at.  You know what else is horrible to look at?  Pictures of the bodies of mangled kids who were blown up when a bomber drops a payload on a war zone.  Kids who were walking and talking and playing and smiling to their mothers, who now have to bury their child.  That’s horrifying to me.  Thing is, people need to defend themselves, and sometimes people do that through collective action as a nation or state– that’s what happens with wars.  It’s not pretty, it’s not easy and I’d prefer it never happen, but sometimes it needs to, for the greater good in the long run.  Likewise with abortion.

I think the problem I have most of the time I try to discuss this topic with anyone is that we aren’t working within the same parameters; that is, that my starting assumptions and basis for argument are completely different from those who find themselves in opposition to me.  So, before I really begin any debate on abortion, I have to lay down a few “basic understandings” or a common ground on which to discuss.  If those can’t be met, then there’s no real reason for us to even talk, because we’re in a situation where we both perceive reality in vastly different terms.  These understandings are:

1)  Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. You might not like it, you might not think it’s a good thing, but it isn’t mystical voodoo or evil magic.  It’s something that doctors go through training to do, because it might be necessary to perform.  While it used to be something performed in back-alleys by shady guys with little or no medical training, that was back in the day– the people who perform these procedures are extremely well-versed in the process and have a great understanding of the weight of their decisions.  Most doctors never perform one, many would refuse to in all but the most dire circumstances, but none of them are idiots and none of them do it without serious consultation.

2)  Women have rights. This one should go without saying, but unfortunately, some disagree with this point, even if they won’t come out and say it.  It’s funny to see the conservatives talk about the evils of putting a government bureaucrat in between a patient and their doctor when it comes to Universal Health Care, but that’s exactly what they hope to do when it comes to abortion.  They want the government sitting in the doctor’s office picking and choosing what procedures women can and can’t have.  Note that they’re not picking on vasectomies or viagra (you can bet THOSE will be covered by any government health plan with absolutely no debate), but on things that effect women.  Why?  Perhaps because they’re not starting with the assumption that women have a right to complete domain over their bodies to the exact same degree as men, and have the exact same right to have medical procedures related to reproductive freedom and function as men do.

3)  Women are human beings. Women are not shrill harpies sitting around all day plotting how best to abort their fetii.  The decision to abort is not taken lightly.  It’s tough, and it’s serious.  I wish folks would stop acting like every woman who has had an abortion did it for the laughs, or that they treat it as casual showing boobs at Mardi Gras.  I’ve never talked to a woman who had an abortion who sounded like, “Oh yeah, I got an abortion.  It was a hoot.  I should pencil another one in for next thursday!  Ain’t nothin’ like getting an abortion!”  Instead, I hear stories told in hushed tones over coffee that grows colder and colder because they can’t even touch it thinking about it; they aren’t happy they had to do it, but they readily admit that they had to do it.

4)  Any statement that starts with “I know a guy/girl who…” is invalid from the get-go. I’m sorry, but anecodal evidence is useful in a casual sense, between friends who are talking about something non-serious.  ”I know a guy who met Michael Jackson and said he was doped out of his brain!” is certainly interesting and useful because it’s about celebrity gossip and we can all agree that it’s far from serious business; no one should make policy based on “I know a guy/girl who…” statements.  Likewise, when we talk about abortion policy, I don’t care if you know a guy who dated a girl who liked to have an abortion every 3 months, or that you know a girl who swears that she went to Planned Parenthood and they tried to talk her into having an abortion for their regular satanic blood orgies.  I really don’t.  Because, in my mind, any time someone uses “I know a guy/girl who…” in a sentence during a policy discussion, I just swap that part for:  ”I totally think you’re stupid, so I’m going to pass off some chain e-mail bullcrap as a tale about someone I know who…”

The problem, though, is that once someone accepts these things, it’s actually kinda hard for them to really play politics with abortion– what kind of human being would try to say that women should be singled out as not having a right to medical confidentiality, or that women should be treated as less than human, or that legitimate medical procedures should be blocked for one person because it makes another person upset?  Imagine if Jehovahs Witnesses attempted to keep the federal funds from going to blood transfusions, because they consider that immoral?  Imagine Scientologists attempting to keep federal funds from going to pay for psychiatric medications?  Imagine if Muslims attempted to keep the federal funds from going to putting in pig valves to keep people with heart conditions alive?  Imagine any number of other things which are considered immoral by any number of religions, and see how ridiculous it is to open the door for everyone to demand their tax dollars not go to these things.

What’s the answer?  Democracy, maybe?  To help keep every tiny religion from picking out things they don’t like?  How is that any better?  It’s still wrong, whether it’s a handful of followers trying to prevent paying for legitimate medical procedures, or if it’s 99% of the country.  A great many of us got to see how horrifying it is when the majority wields its influence without a check or balance during Jim Crow and segregation days, we got to get a refresher this last November when existing rights were taken from gay and lesbian couples in California by the majority there.

The best solution, as I see it, is that if we have a “public option” health insurance, or a single payer system, that we keep our hands off the micromanaging of medical decisions– don’t play political football with the lives of others, but accept that women in consultation with their physician of choice can  make good medical decisions just as easily as men make with their physician of choice.  Don’t open the door to religious meddling in the public option.  Besides negatively affecting the quality of health care in the public option and undermining its effectiveness as an insurance program, it also cedes the question of separation of church and state to the side that wants to impose theocratic rule, and that is simply unacceptable.

The only way I can finish this is to ask you:  If you don’t trust a woman to make an intelligent decision about her own care and treatment, then why would you ever trust her to raise a child, over whom she will have to make decisions constantly about care and treatment?

I would prefer such a solution for the problem of health care in the United States to be aimed at decentralizing the practice of common medical care.  I would rather more people dedicate themselves to becoming more educated regarding medicine and biology; this would have impacts beyond just being able to take care of your own injuries or illnesses, but also in how you see your own lifestyle choices and in how you view policies which undermine scientific research due to ignorance.  I believe that there should be greater efforts to increase the basic knowledge of average citizens about medicine, and that there should be loosening of the restrictions and regulations which govern less serious forms of medical care and the required materials to perform such care.  Any move toward disassembling even the smallest part of the current health care regulatory structure with an eye towards democritization should be accompanied with efforts to increase individual citizen knowledge on the community level.

Federal regulation of drugs, except for the purpose of ensuring that they are safe for human consumption and are properly labeled, should be abolished.  If states wish to regulate the sale (not possession) of controlled substances (and all of them already have their own laws, anyway), then it should be handled like that– though I’d prefer that states not do so, to be honest, and leave such regulations to the community level.  Why?  Because if I live in Georgia and a medication I determine (either through my own judgment or through consultation with a physician or other professional) is made illegal to purchase, then I should not have to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest state where it is legal.

I should be able to live in a community where such substances are as regulated as I feel comfortable with; if the community makes a decision to regulate such substances more tightly than the surrounding communities, then I should be free to drive a short distance to get the medication I need.  Possession, however, should not be regulated under any terms– what I put in my body is my own business, or that of my physician or other designated health professional, should I choose.  By controlling the purchase and possession of these substances and limiting the ability to prescribe them to a limited group, the government is forcing individuals to go to consult people they otherwise would not choose to.

While I understand that many substances are dangerous if taken improperly, and that improperly administered antibiotic medications increase the chances of breeding drug-resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria, I also understand that these substances are still dangerous if taken improperly when prescribed by a doctor and that antibiotic medications are already being improperly administered in large quantities, leading to strains of bacteria such as MRSA and VRSA.  The current system is not preventing these problems and has the added drawback of slowing the provision of medical care to those in need.

I believe that there should be more ways for motivated citizens to receive training and certification to help take care of people in their community in handling lesser medical issues in order to free up physicians and other health professionals who have received more specialized training.  I believe that the physicians who are more trained should be treated as professionals, and called upon when necessary to handle serious medical situations, but not as a special ‘priest caste’ which has powers above and beyond the average person to provide care.  It should not be necessary to spend nine to fifteen years to diagnose common ailments and provide basic medical care; while reforms are currently in progress to increase the application of physicians assistants and nurses (particularly nurse practitioners) to the practice of medicine for common problems, I do not believe this will be adequate for providing universal health care.

However, I do not believe that a universal health coverage provided by the government would be the end-all, either.  While insurance companies are major contributors to the expense and difficulty in receiving treatment in the U.S., there still remains an essential problem of insufficient medical staff to handle the case load.  The high standards currently in place for people to practice medicine are helpful in ensuring quality care, and those positions which currently exist should stay the same in both the intensity of training and in the exacting standards to receive training.  I do not believe that we should be encouraging people to perform surgeries on family members at home or to administer massive doses of morphine to suffering elderly relatives rather than take them to the hospital for treatment.  However, it shouldn’t be necessary to see a doctor for an uninfected ingrown toenail when a registered nurse could handle it.

Admittedly, though, I am not a medical expert.  This whole piece is full of “shoulds” and statements of ideals and what could be, and the problem with that is that reality doesn’t always work with it.  I’m really just writing this to consider options and think about possibilities for answers beyond what is just the obvious scope of discussion, beyond talking about insurance versus single-payer versus full nationalization and all those in between.  I just want to explore the possibilities of changing the basics of the system to a degree and easing the crisis from a different direction.

There’s an important distinction here, between the idea of “Anarchism as Government” (if such a thing could really exist) and the philosophies of Anarchy.  I hold the latter; that is, I believe that the best, most productive and healthiest forms of human interaction are carried out between individuals acting as equals.  I think this pretty much is self-evident, and when its stated like that, it’s indeed hard to find someone who will disagree with that, at least in principle.  The idea of “Anarchism as Government” is not something I agree with, or at least considering the prevailing social conditions currently present throughout the world.  Where it might just work in small groups and tribes throughout the world, it just doesn’t seem to be feasible on a large scale (yet).

So, for this reason, I reject the concept of an “Anarchist Revolution” to destroy the current order; that is, the idea that a singular event would disestablish government and abolish all hierarchy as we know it.  The way we’ve been conditioned societally since the inception of agriculture prevents this from lasting; the hierarchies that would be smashed would simply be supplanted by new hierarchies– the strong would just rule over the weak with impunity.  So, with this in mind, I have to admit that hierarchal government works… for now.

The key here is separating the ideals and the politics and figuring out how to make them work.  My ideals are tempered by pragmatism when I look at politics, as “politics is the art of the possible” (Otto von Bismarck).  You have to look at what you can do, when you look at politics.  However, you don’t have to be simply satisfied with just the possible; that is why ideals must remain first.  I believe that, when legal, individuals can and should do everything to solve problems that we face every day.  Likewise, I think that government should be the very last option for solving problems; especially the federal government– however, I believe that it should be an option, as long as it exists.

If people starving in the streets is something you see as a major social problem, the first thing you should do isn’t go lobby your congressman for an expansion of food stamps, or for some new food program.  That could take months, or years, and likely won’t even reach the people who need it most– if the people who are starving were sufficiently bureaucratically skilled to take advantage of such expansions of welfare, they’d already have food.  So, do you start a charity, raise funds to buy food and then use that to feed them?  Well, it’s not a bad idea (and those places that do this are certainly admirable), but that also takes a long time and then you must spend money or effort to publicize the availability of the food at the central distribution point.   You could certainly alleviate the last part by distributing the food through a ‘food van’ which seeks out the people in need, but then you have additional costs of operating the vans.  Charities serve a good purpose, and help ease the problem, but they are not the best way to immediately solve the problem.

This is why I advocate for programs like Food Not Bombs:  Go find food that is being wasted and save it from being sent to the dumpster and cook it immediately, then feed it to whoever needs it.  The key here is understanding the system.  Grocery stores, which are regulated in how long they can keep produce or other food items.  While libertarians argue against these regulations and the cost to the businesses which are governed by them, I prefer to exploit them for the benefit of average people.

If these places are going to toss this stuff in the dumpster anyways, why not work with the businesses to find a way to get your hands on them for little or no cost before they get nastied up?  While other anarchists might balk at the idea, I’d be totally fine with returning the favor and placing a sign that says that the food being served is “courtesy of” a grocery store which provides it for free willingly, giving them good publicity for doing good deeds.

This is just a single example of solving a problem directly, without government permission or assistance.  The problem that I think most people have with this method is that it requires more effort of us than just passing a law and hoping “other people” will handle it.  It requires we dig ourselves into it, and take responsibility for our own communities.  It requires we interact with the people we hope to help, and hopefully learn something from it.  It requires we take complete ownership of the problem, which is hard because it requires us to take responsibility for the solving of the problem– not necessarily for the problem itself, which is an important distinction– and confront it directly.

So, when it comes to whether or not I think a judge is going to be confirmed or not– I don’t really care all that much.  Governments exist to enforce stability and they sustain themselves by being stable.  The larger the scope of the Government, the more stable they must be in order to continue to exist.  This requires that a certain continuity of opinion and method is followed in order to maintain the status quo.  Stasis is what makes these institutions last, and so you will never see a U.S. Supreme Court justice who is anywhere near as radical as the rhetoric makes him or her out to be.  They are only radical within the context of a narrow spectrum of “acceptable” opinion; the “higher” the position, the more narrow the spectrum.

This goes for representatives and senators, as well.  The two most radical men in the Capitol building are probably Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, two polar opposites.  Even then, Ron Paul’s big radical feature is his strong ’states rights’ stance– he doesn’t really believe the government should have less power, just that more power should be given to state governments (which tend to be more radical in their application of power on the citizens).  Likewise, Dennis Kucinich seems radical when compared to other democrats, but for the most part his biggest ‘radical’ feature is that he’s willing to play Captain Obvious– though, admittedly, this is pretty radical in a body of people who seem to believe their job description include lying to everyone, including themselves– his politics would be considered to be mainstream center-left in most of the world.

However, my pragmatic mindset towards politics requires me to discuss and debate within the confines of what IS, instead of what I’d wish would be.  So, when I discuss specific politicians or political parties with other people, it is with the understanding that I only support them as far as they minimize the damage that is done in my own life.  Not one elected official in this nation seems to advocate a full policy platform which entirely eliminates their over-involvement in my own life, so I am forced to choose on individual issues who to support and who not to.  Most anarchists actively reject the action of voting, and I can respect that perspective.  I, however, reject that perspective in my own life.  While a given politician will not do what I want them to do, some may be better in others in doing less damage to me while advancing some small part of my own preferences.

This past election, I voted for Obama; I felt he would do the least amount of damage to the world, that he would do the least amount of damage to my community and that he would do the least amount of damage to me, relative to the other choices I was presented.  I don’t like libertarian perspectives on economics, I can’t stand the constitution party, the Green Party has a good idea but is woefully misguided, and McCain/Palin was just unthinkable in every way.  With McCain/Palin, I would either get four years of a septuagenarian war hawk who doesn’t even know how to use the internet or one or two years of him followed by the ‘tragedy’ of his death followed by a couple years of the nuclear football being in the hands of the Third Placer for Miss Alaska 1984.  Yeah, no way.

I dislike the idea of revolution as an event, though, because it does nothing to help rid us of our conditioning towards hierarchy.  I do not believe that such a condition is a result of human nature, but rather just the conditioning placed on us by the requirements of first developing an agricultural, then industrial and now post-industrial society.  In order to produce the food from the land (and beasts of the land), we developed hierarchy out of relative anarchy, to maximize yields and generate the agricultural surplus necessary to sustain further growth and development (in other words, the bureaucracy had to expand to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy).

Later, we needed this hierarchy to drive industrial production to further expand the reach of human societies.  Finally, we used this hierarchy to bring us to a new kind of economic structure which is based on the transfer of wealth and the provision of services in addition to the exchange of goods (indeed, services have supplanted manufacturing and agriculture as our raw material production capacity has reached a scale where the cost of physical goods are becoming incidental to the services that surround them).  At this point, however, we are seeing even the products of our society taking on anarchic and decentralized forms– the internet is a good example, as there is no central place one can go to shut down the entire internet, because it provides an example of individuals acting as equals to create the most astounding product of the human imagination in history.

The true ‘revolution’ that I seek, within terms of anarchist philosophy, is a personal revolution within each individual.  Not to eliminate support structures, but to decentralize them for increased reliability, redundancy and widespread availability.  Not to turn over your entire life and go live out in some commune in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of dirty hippies, but to wage a daily ongoing revolution within your own mind.  Seek out new ways to solve problems under the existing conditions and fight for the freedom to find even more ways to do so.  Examine whether you really need permission to do some of the things you do in your every day life; fight the institutional mindset that is rife in our culture.  It’s the little things that you do daily that really make the biggest difference.

I’d like to wrap it up by proposing just a few ideas you can jump on, to improve your community and exercise anarchist philosophy in a practical and pragmatic way.  Instead of lobbying your government for more roadside cleanup to beautify your city or waiting for permission to ‘adopt a highway/street’, just go out there with some friends and do some cleanup– pair it up with a recycling effort and you might even make some money you can use to take everyone out for a meal together.  Instead of lobbying your government for more police patrols in your neighborhood or trying to create an ‘official’ neighborhood watch-type program, just get more involved in your neighborhood, get to know your neighbors and keep an eye out for people who bring trouble with them.  Instead of lobbying your government for more funding for your public schools, see if there’s a way you can go and volunteer in some capacity to free up existing resources– this is especially relevant for college students studying to become teachers themselves, spending time with the kinds of students they may later end up teaching.

All of those methods don’t require you to break any laws or challenge any fundamental social structures; they’re entirely legal and entirely reasonable to anyone.  They’re also fairly common sense, but you’d be surprised how infrequently such things occur to most people.  Ideas like these,  once they enter your mind, challenge you to consider the many ways in which you can work to improve things around you without asking permission first.  It places in your mind an understanding of the importance of breaking down preconceptions as to what is possible, and exploring the many ways you can better your own life on your own terms.

That is why I say that I hold such ideals– because I want to live my own life on my own terms whenever possible.

Before I start on this (as it may quickly start sounding like a rant), I want to say that my own therapist is awesome.  She’s caring, helpful, guiding, quick to listen and very understanding.  To be honest, it is her example which informs my own opinion of what a therapist should be; I am not a psychologist in any sense of the term, except perhaps as an armchair type.  I grew up in a household that was filled with psychology terminology and ideas, from both of my parents.  I believe that this environment was extremely conducive to a positive world view, where the focus is on understanding and working with the behavior of others as individuals.  However, I lean much more towards the sociological perspective which looks at the larger systemic and systematic causes and how they have an effect on human behavior.

So, with the understanding that I have no real formal training about being a therapist, I press on.

Bree’s last session was meant to involve her working with her therapist on locating a suitable place for her to get laser facial hair removal performed.  This is a necessary task, as despite the hormone replacement therapy that trans women undergo, the facial hair that begins to grow after puberty does not stop growing (it does slow its rate, however).  Right now, the two means of long-term facial hair removal for trans women are Laser and Electrolysis.  Electrolysis requires less up-front money, but requires a greater time commitment and eventually costs more; however, it is entirely permanent, or at least as permanent as facial hair removal can be.  Laser, on the other hand, requires a substantial up-front outlay of funds, but delivers results much faster and for much less money; it is considered a ‘permanent’ method of hair removal, though really, it’s only been proven to be a (very) long-term solution.  Right now, the typical regimen involves getting facial hair removal performed first, for six sessions or so until almost all the hairs have been removed, and then electrolysis to deal with the remaining smaller hairs.

Bree had apparently made this a high priority, and voiced this to her therapist, who had agreed to use this past session to help in the process of finding a place that she felt comfortable going to.  However, when she arrived, the therapist had changed his mind and determined that Bree should do other “less expensive” things first.  While the therapist is certainly justified in suggesting that Bree consider other options first (in order to increase the effectiveness of the procedure or maximize the efficiency of the money spent), simply stating that Bree should do other things and then refusing help after agreeing to help is out of line, in my opinion.  Once Bree made it clear that her first priority was hair removal, then that should have been enough– but it wasn’t.

The reason this stuck out for me is twofold.  First, because it had such a devastating effect on my friend.  Bree fell into a depressive episode following this, becoming discouraged– for someone with anxiety problems, this is not a trifling matter, it’s serious.  The therapist should’ve been more thoughtful about how he was going to handle this in order to prevent exacerbating her anxiety, and should have put her opinions and feelings first while considering how to present the idea of postponing this procedure.  Second, because this is something that seemingly happens all the time to trans people (especially trans women), in both therapeutic/counseling settings and in medical settings.  It’s a holdover of the old “gatekeeper” model, where mental health professionals and physicians placed themselves into a position of being barriers to treatment for trans people.

In the past, it was much harder for trans people to get the medical help they needed.  Only so many mental health and medical professionals would even deal with their situation to begin with, and all of them had their own ideas and schemes for determining if care was justified.  This forced many trans people to act out stereotypical roles for long periods of time and to go “full time” far before they were ready socially or legally in order to get the medical treatments they needed.  Trans women were pretty much required to dress as feminine as possible, regardless of suitability to their profession or social status and trans men (if they were acknowledged at all) were required to be as masculine as possible, regardless of their situation.

Medical professionals would not provide care until the trans person had gotten the okay of a therapist or psychiatrist.  The therapist or psychiatrist would not give the okay until they felt the person had “proven” themselves to be… well, “trans enough”, is the best way I can put it.  This set back not just individuals on their own paths to mental health and personal fulfillment, but also the entire field of research into trans people and the condition of transexuality, by creating a selection bias:  If you only recognize as transexuals those who fit your own personal prejudices about transexuality, then you taint the pool of patients that you can work with for understanding and coming up with better treatments.

Even then, medical professionals would set themselves up as all-knowing experts, the final gatekeepers for the physical aspects of gender transition.  They would deny or grant treatment only to those who fit the “type” they were already used to seeing; the prejudices of the physicians, rather than the evidence at hand, was the final word.  Again, by only recognizing those who fit the bias, they tainted the pool, setting back individuals and the entire field.  This ruined lives, leading to horrific results for those who were denied treatment by their “gatekeepers”.

The thing about being transexual is that there is no independent, absolute test.  It is just something that the individual knows, from personal reflection and understanding.  This is why therapy is key; it helps people sort through their issues, feelings, thoughts, and past in order to examine themselves and uncover the truth.  The therapist is to act as a guide, to help the person find what he or she really wants and needs, and to them help them figure out how to realize it.  While a therapist is still required to sign off the “magic letter” required for the initiation of Hormone Replacement Therapy, it should not be a question of whether the therapist is satisfied that the person is “trans enough” to begin it, but rather than the therapist is satisfied that the individual has explored all of his or her options first and done some real personal examination to find if they feel that they are trans.

Once that point is reached, then it should be a simple matter of helping the trans person to find out what he or she wants to do next, and then help them realize it.  That’s it.  There should be no obstruction, no gatekeeping, and none of the vestiges of paternalism from the old horrible order which destroyed untold lives.  That is why what happened to Bree is so striking to me; because I see in her case, the last bits of those old ways fighting to harm yet another person.  The “gatekeeper” model should be laid to rest for good– it is only through mutual respect between a therapist and her patient that proper treatment can commence.

I’m hoping that Bree will find the courage to stand up for what she wants and to demand to have more say in the path that her transition takes, because she sure deserves to as much as anyone else does.

I think one of the odd things about how we treat love is by limiting the use of the word to only a few areas.  There’s a stigma attached, especially among males, to avoid the use of the word “love” for feelings of affection for friends, especially of the same sex.  For some reason, we put love into a box, where we only let it get used for romantic purposes, or for family relations.  In some limited settings, people will use it for friends with whom there is a large age differential which eliminates the possibility of romantic affection; this seemingly is due to a kind of familial-type attachment where the elder friend is almost like an extra parent or another uncle or aunt, who is a mentor of sorts.

I believe that love does not get used nearly enough, and as a result, our own feelings for each other suffer.  Words are a powerful thing; they shape thought, and vice-versa.  The words we use affect the emotions we feel, and then the emotions we feel seep into the words we use.  The words we hear do just the same, and so the limitations we place on the word limit our own emotions, keep us blocked off from one another.  Certainly, we need more than just love as an emotion (“All you need is love” not withstanding), but love is something I think we should foster more of.  The key, however, would be to expand its usage without diluting its meaning.

For that, we’d require a kind of movement.  It would have to be something disorganized, though, non-hierarchical.  Love demands a new form of relationship between people as autonomous equals– as individuals.  Love forces us to abandoned preconceptions and accept greater visions for ourselves.  Love is spontaneous and unexpected, and breaks whatever barriers society places in its path.  Its a force of nature, and to advance its cause, whoever takes up its banner must be likewise– an unstoppable force of nature, spreading love on their own terms and relying only on their own permission for their own operations.

Love is subversive, you see.  It’s like a militant guerilla, or a ninja saboteur.  It sneaks into you and it changes you.  It fights within you for control of your body, of your soul, of your mind.  It takes root against any forces against it.  It challenges its foes to a deadly combat perfected over thousands of years, a sacred martial art only it knows.  Once it has staked out its territory, it makes you a better person; you see life itself as a gift, you feel lighter in each step.  You become someone new, reborn; the man in love who was once confused and unfocused suddenly realizes what he wants and sets himself to the task. The life which was once hollow, unfulfilling has purpose and meaning.

It is not just romantic love, though, that has this power.  It’s the love between friends, the love between family, the love between lovers (of course), and even love between enemies (yes, even enemies).  You see, to stand opposed does not mean love cannot bloom– indeed, it is on the common fields on which we all fight that the ground is most fertile, with the passion we all feel for similar things.  You do not oppose others vigorously over matters you consider trivial; you oppose others over things which you care about the most.  The people with whom you argue and debate with are people with whom you actually do share something in common.  I say, do not be afraid to reach out to them and acknowledge that though you may disagree, that you love them all the same, for being someone who also cares about the same things as you.

Homophobia, though, be damned– tell your friends you love them, if you do, even if they are of the same sex.  Tell them that you care about them and how much they mean to you (of course, make it clear that you mean love in the purely non-sexual sense).  There is a deep failing within circles of friends where people are frightened to speak of love to those who they spend most of their time with, who clearly mean a great deal to them, and whom they would do anything for.  I think that is part of why we see so much homophobia, really– is because we are all creating these unnatural hindering barriers within ourselves, to separate each other from each other and sequester away love into limited “acceptable” forms and formats.

We shouldn’t be afraid to love, because it is love that calls us to our greatest moments.  It is love which brings out the best within us; the part of us that hungers for touch, the part of us that yearns for friendship, the part of us that acts out of kindness, and the part of us that desires to be both generous to others and grateful for the generocity we receive.  Love makes us remember who we really want to be, deep down.  It makes us strong, even though it sometimes makes us feel as though it is about to break us.  We carry our love for others with us to steel us against the darkest hours, and we carry their love for us to give us power when we feel weakest.  If you’ve ever seen someone who wanted to give up when the going got tough but then found just enough within themselves to keep pulling on, then you saw them draw on some hidden reserve of love somewhere deep down which pulled them through.

At the end of it all, I really want to say that I love you all.  Yes, you, the person reading this.  And anyone who you send this to, or send your love to.  And anyone else they might send it to, or send their own love to.  I find it hard not to love other people; even the people who most frustrate and enrage me, even at their worst, still contain a wealth of complexity and beauty of spirit deep within them.  Even the most spiteful and hateful, the most bigoted and ignorant, and the most dark and evil… they all have some story to them, some reason, and something of value within them.  It might sound like hippie nonsense, or fruity liberal lefty pinko blah blah blah, sure.  And yes, there are always a few exceptions (No, I do not think Hitler was someone I could find love for).  However, I do not make my life’s rules and philosophy for the exceptions– I make it for most people, and I just make the exceptions when they come.

I hope, though, that someone out there who reads this today will tell someone they know who they hadn’t told before that they love them, and that they care about them, and that they mean something to them.  I hope, too, that everyone who reads this today, will tell this to everyone they know that they hadn’t told before… before it’s too late to tell them.  Life can change in an instant; I think the drudgery or tediousness of day to day living can fool us into forgetting how random the world is.

This year, we’ve seen a good heaping ton of famous celebrities die, and if you haven’t lost anyone in the past year or two, or even three, I hope you can take that reminder of the mortality that surrounds use and act accordingly.  Understand that anyone can die at any minute, any hour, any day now; don’t take it and get depressed, take it and find value.  Understand the precarious nature of life to understand the precious nature of life, and use it to force yourself to do those things that you fear to do because you don’t know what the cost of acting rashly may be.  Overcome your fear of saying “I love you,” to that friend of yours who you’ve known since you were little, with whom you’ve shared so much; the fear you have that you don’t know what he’d think of you for saying it.

Instead, think about what you’ll think of yourself for not saying it, when he’s gone and you can’t.

Love.  Spread the Word.

(After-Post Note:  I was going to write a different piece today about something that had outraged me recently, regarding the “gatekeeper” model of therapy that can sometimes dominate in cases where a person’s own objectives outside of the therapy session require the approval of a therapist; however, I’m going to wait until I get my friend’s permission before I can use her case as an example of what I’m talking about.)

Usually, the way it works is I brainstorm up the core of the story, and then write it up as best I can, edit, revise and re-read it; I usually get the title somewhere around the final readthrough, some set of words sticking out in my head.  On the other hand, for blog posts, I typically title first and write from there– I use the title to focus what I’m writing because I don’t really brainstorm up exactly what I’m going to write up for the blog, except just that I feel like writing on a particular topic.

This title seems to have been borne from some middle ground between the two.  I don’t think I could’ve used the title to focus the beginning of the writing, because the character at the beginning is actually fairly meek and definitely not too fitting of the imagery associated with a valkyrie.  However, by the beginning of the third chapter (which is where I am now), the protagonist (with the assistant of her therapist) is beginning to learn to verbalize what she wants, and to expect it.  She’s beginning to learn to fight for what she feels she deserves by taking the first step of naming it.  So, it’s now something which I can actually use to visualize the character’s development during the story.

I don’t think I could have waited until the end to name this, either.  Re-reading the whole thing for a single passage from which to derive the name would have been a bit tedious, and while using the title of the story inside a short story is acceptible enough, I doubt such a thing would pass muster in a novel (it’s corny enough when films do it).  So, using “Valkyrie in Progress” as the title works since it’s also highly unlikely that I’ll actually use that phrase within the pages of the novel itself.

About the title itself, I wanted to make sure that the title reflecting a theme of being incomplete and the story being a process of completion.  The title had to be, in a sense, an “Under Construction” sign for the protagonist.  That is the significance of the “In Progress” in the title.  As for Valkyrie, I had to think to myself about what best suited the image of a woman who has to fight for every inch of herself.  I had to operate, then, from the archetype of the “warrior woman”, but the idea of “amazons” was right out (it just doesn’t seem to fit, I don’t think).  So, I had to ponder other manifestations of the mythological archetype and the first and best idea that came to mind was that of valkyries.

Valkyries stuck out not just because of their significance as deities, or as women warriors, but also in their innate ties to the cycle of rebirth, which just works so well in considering how the character is going to progress into the story from a teenager into a woman.  Likewise, Valkyries are just so awesome.  The volume of material (both ancient and modern) on the Valkyries is staggering, and it seems to be a trend that will continue– the concepts and imagery tied into the role and idea of Valkyries seems to strike a chord within people of many backgrounds, including myself.  I’m hoping that my protagonist’s development into her own kind of Valkyrie is enjoyable and just as striking for my readers.

Oh, and if you’re on Facebook and you’re interested, I have a group centered around the novel.  If you’d like to join just click here.