You Are the Government: Wikileaks and Transparency

So Julian Assange of Wikileaks recently released about 250,000 secret documents from the State Department.  The very best thing you could possibly read about Wikileaks is Glenn Greenwald.  Here is a smattering, the tip o' the iceberg, of new information that we learned about our government's illegal and immoral activity from these documents that Greenwald  put together:

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

The Immigration List, Continued

An investigation into the now infamous immigration list has revealed that two state workers compiled the information illegally from state databases.  I wrote a little about it a few days ago here.  This entire episode has ratcheted up the level of intensity surrounding the immigration issue here in Utah and also nationwide.  Amidst all of this the Church's position is to approach immigration with a spirit of compassion, "careful reflection and civil discourse," and "the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

After skimming the Deseret News comment sections to some relevant articles and doing a little "web surfing" I'm finding that a lot of politically conservative members of the church aren't so thrilled with the vibe they are getting from the church on this issue.  They find themselves in a somewhat unfamiliar position of not being exactly on-board with a political issue into which the church has inserted itself.  The word you are looking for is: schadenfreude.

If it's Illegal, continued...

In the previous post, I outlined my belief that making a particular act illegal does not automatically invoke public adherence. Although the motivation for many laws are justifiable, too many of these laws are directed at the symptom rather than the illness.

To reiterate this point, look again at laws against phone usage will driving. The impetus behind such a law is to protect the fundamental right of life, as in the life of everybody put in danger by irresponsible drivers. Despite widespread agreement that such a law is adventitious in promoting safety, there will continue to be widespread disregard for this regulation, just as there has been for similar laws - drunk driving, drowsy driving, distracted driving, and delinquent driving. The symptom of reckless endangerment of others may be punished by stricter laws, but the illness of self centered concern remains untouched. To be ameliorated, there must be more oversight into the education of drivers. Teach them of societal responsibility, of potential consequences, and of unselfish concern. If people are inherently good, as many will argue, then they will make the right decision.

The same logic can be applied to abortion. The two conflicting political arguments for adjustment of current laws are that the mother has the right to choose a safe and legal abortion, and the sanctity and rights of an unborn child. The motivation behind both of these movements is actually very similar - freedom of choice. Amazingly, the two ideologies are not mutually exclusive. In other words, both arguments are correct. The mother does have the right to choose a safe and legal abortion, and the unborn child is a precious miracle that must be protected. The confounding difference is that the first puts the individual rights of the mother above all other virtue, while the second upholds the ambiguous definitions of "life."

The individual right of choice is just that, and individual right. Were the mother the only person involved in the decision of abortion, then she indeed has the right to choose what she does with her own body. What is overlooked is 1) the freedom of choice was already exercised when coitus was chosen, 2) the unborn child can not be ignored. Obviously there may be extenuating circumstances on a moral level that would result in a decision of abortion. These have been addressed according to LDS doctrine. Read more here, here, and here.

The ambiguous definition of what is alive, viable, or cognisant, must also be addressed. According to current medical technology and opinion, it is impossible for a fetus to remain alive and grow, if removed from the uterus during the first trimester. Hence, before this time the unborn child is not "alive" and is therefore not entitled to the same rights as other human beings. Others advocate that the moment of fertilization is when life begins.

I feel that both of these arguments are flawed. If 22 weeks is the benchmark of life, then why is it that a fetus has independent circulation, detectable brain function, and response to stimuli at much earlier time points? If fertilization is the only requirement for life, then why is it impossible to produce a completely extrauterine child? I've commented on conception before, but I would also like to add that if fertilization is truly the moment that life is viable, then several forms of birth control would need to be rethought.

Now that we've explored the two sides of the abortion debate, a point needs to be made. Arguing about the details of mother and child's rights, debating the moment of viability, and deliberating on the legality of abortion only serve to detract from the real issues: Life is precious and sacred. All individuals have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom from consequences.

Abortion itself is a minor symptom of a significantly greater social epidemic. Making abortion illegal will do little to ameliorate those fundamental problems; identically, making if easier to "empty life's creative chamber" is not a solution. If laws are to be made, these should be addressed at the cause that lead to contemplating abortion - "problems such as poverty, injustice, intolerance, ignorance, immorality, and selfishness."

If It's Illegal, Then They'll Stop

I am extremely tired of the argument that making some activity illegal will automatically result in people terminating said behavior. Such an idea is fundamentally contradictory to free agency, and a completely asinine approach to effectively modifying an individuals conduct.

I am not an anarchist. In contrast, I strongly advocate a government, and social oversight. The basic difference I see between the "left" and the "right" is in the degree of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The left favors personal freedom, with the belief that individual accountability and social liability will guide a person to the "correct" choice. On the other hand, the "right" favors more societal order, with the belief that generalized mandates and social regulation will guide a person to the "correct" choice. I will definitely argue that a majority of the "correct" choices actually overlap, but I disagree that both methods are equally effective.

As I drove into work I was amazed by the selfishness of many drivers around me. The speed limit says 65, but only the far right lane adheres to it; the "texters" briefly checking the road in front of them every 2 or 3 minutes; and the multiple lane changes without prior notification. Although only 2 out of 3 of the above are explicitly illegal, the third is not far behind. More importantly, I can't help but wonder, if so many people have such blatant disregard for two laws, then why not the third?

I agree with a ban on text messaging while driving, because it is put in place to protect the lives of other people. I also imagine that it will decrease the persistent use of texting behind the wheel. However, just like laws against speeding and unsafe driving, I am absolutely positive that it will not have the overwhelming result of stopping even a majority of people from texting. The fatal flaw is that people can still choose not to obey. And these are the easy and obvious laws! It is not difficult to slow down, signal, and wait 10 minutes to type ROFL. We are asked to obey these laws so as to decrease the chance that we, or other drives become one of the 120K+ deaths per year. It is the same reason that, by law, you must wear a seat belt.

If you drive a car, get in an accident as a result of careless/distracted/drunk/unsafe driving, and someone dies, it is either murder or suicide.

Another thought came to me at the pharmacy as I picked up my doctor prescribed, personalized bottle of medicine. It had my name on it, my doctors name, and the name of the pharmacy on the bottle. My wife's name wasn't there, my dog's name wasn't there, and I'm positive that Jake's name wasn't there either. It is a Class A Misdemeanor for taking medicine prescribed to someone else. It is also a Class A misdemeanor to give or sell your own prescribed medicine to someone else. That's for first time offenders. The second time one gets caught, the offense jumps to a Class D felony. Amazingly, despite the substantial consequences and clear unlawfulness of prescription drug abuse, Utah ranks number 1 in the nation by percentage.

So where exactly is the evidence that suggests that making something illegal is that great of a deterrent?