Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Pro-Death Vs. Anti-Choice


January 24th, 2009 – Newly elected president Barack Obama has cancelled a law that prevented the financing of Abortion Funds. These funds are actually non-profit organisations that provide money and information about safe abortion clinics to the less-fortunate. They do a certain amount of work directly in the United States where there is no national healthcare and where private insurance rarely covers the services of an abortion clinic. More importantly, they provide funding to maintain information networks and safe abortion clinics internationally in the Third World. Almost instantaneously, the self-designated ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ interest groups released statements.

Firstly on the pro-choice or ‘the people not against abortion’, we have the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). They greatly applauded president Obama for loosening the « stranglehold of women’s health accross the globe ». Also, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was overjoyed to once again receive funding from America. This UN program assists Third-World nations that have crippling overpopulation problems and where many women die from self-abortion related injuries and infections.

In the opposite corner, the pro-life or ‘people against abortions’, we have the National Right to Life Commitee (NRLC). They also rapidly voiced their opinion by affirming that this new White House policy is ‘effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control’. Further still in the depths of exaggeration we have the Vatican. A Spokesperson from St. Peter’s basilica accused Mr. Obama for his arrongance in thinking that he ‘can decide who lives or dies’. They reiterated that, unlike president Obama, the Pope, Catholics and baby Jesus are against the « slaughter of the innocents ».

As for me, I think both of these groups are tremendous wastes of time and space in a world where « black or white » has never truly existed. I personally abhor abortion and really think there are always viable alternatives to the medical procedure. Furthermore, I think that NOTHING should infringe on personal liberties and thus cannot condone the legal repression of groups that diffuse information about safe abortions. When a gouvernment chooses to eliminate public information services, that gouvernment is guilty of treason towards its people. They are telling their electors that the opinion of the elected elite is much more important than those of the masses of lesser people. They are saving the citizens from themselves because they know what is better for them. You may think I am being ironic (you would be right) but this is basically the justification of fascism that Benito Mussolini gave in the 20s when he invented the concept. Gross exaggerations of ‘stranglehold’, ‘population control’ and ‘slaughter aside’, the legal controversy in America really began a few decades ago…


In 1973, the famed ‘Roe Vs. Wade’ trial found that a woman could abort her child for any reason before the pregnancy reached the 28th week. Anti-abortion legislation having become illegal, pro-life groups could only pressure the gouvernment into cutting funding to anyone that provided any services or information concerning abortion. This led to the Mexico City Policy of 1984.

President Ronald Reagan signed this law that, to receive any form of federal funding, organisations had to sign a contract guaranteeing that they would ‘neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations’. It is my contention that, with more information, women who chose to abort could have opted for another solution yet the this regulation possibly left women to the only option they knew : abortion (ironic isn’t it?). With the signing of the policy in Mexico, groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation lost 20% of their funding and abortion information programs and clinics ceased to exist in Zambia and Ethiopia where rape is rampant.

Later on with the advent of a procreation friendly president Clinton, the Mexico City Policy was cancelled. Clinton said that it infringed personal freedoms of choice and information and that it ‘undermined efforts to promote safe and efficacious family planning programs in foreign nations’. This stood for eight years until…

…there came a man named Double-U who resumed the dictatorial undertones of the policy in 2001. As always, Mr. Bush truly believed in his convictions, stating that ‘taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad’. Although I strongly agree with the spirit of this statement, there are three major problems with the phrasing and wording. Firstly, the use of the word ‘should’ implies that he knows and is the ultimate decider (sic) of what is right and wrong. Secondly, these abortion funds were providing information about abortion, they were not handing out 2 for 1 coupons and airing sales clearance commercials on network television. Finally, although former president Bush’s morality tells him clearly that tax dollars should not go to abortion funds, it also has seemingly told him that the tax dollars SHOULD fund druglords in Afghanistan, the indefinite occupation of Iraq, bankrupt car companies, the Saudi royal family, a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico as well as teenage abstinence programs that continue to be complete failures (as shown by every polling firm in North America).

We loop back to President Obama’s renewal of Clinton’s policy. Abortion funds will once again be financed internationally and this fits perfectly into Obama’s announced promises. That being said, I have to apply the ‘I know what’s best’ probem to all four of them because there has never been a national referendum on the question, the president’s simply assume their opinion is in the best national interest. Although, a poll conducted in 2008 by Gallup showed that 54% of Americans think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances and 28% believe that it should be legal under any circumstances. This has effectively left the aformentioned Vatican, NRLF, former presidents Reagan and Bush to impose the will of 17% of the american population on the other 83%.

In conclusion, I admit that anti-abortion sentiment is philosophical; mine certainly is. I believe in the right for any fetus to his or her potential life because it feels right for me and I truly believe in the concept. As such, I encourage information about the alternatives to abortion for women faced with the unfortunate prospect. On the other hand, the pro-choice sentiment is also philosophical and no more valid than the other concept. I think that a person’s personal rights should be defended at the cost of life and revolution if necessary and I clearly believe it is more important than my personal anti-abortion policy. My convoluted point is that it rarely boils down to philosophy but rather to practicality. Abortion is often seen as a quick solution to a terrible and life-altering problem and thus it will be accomplished no matter how much we legislate against it. We must never lose sight of the political capital aimed by politicians when they bring up abortion; they certainly know, just like the war on drugs and pre-marriage sex, that urge, impulse and practicality wins out over philosophy and religious doctrine every time.

Anti-information programs hurt democracy and If women are going to have an abortion one way or another, shouldn’t it be in a sanitised clinic and carried out by a professional? I definitely think so and for those that disagree, I respect your opinion and suggest you immigrate to Tehran or Vatican city where the gouvernment has made birth control, abortions and women voting illegal.

(Epilogue : It feels really good to write ‘former president Bush’)

(Pictured : In Ancient Cambodia, lack of information led to abortions by method of "mallet to stomach" - Even Soviet Russia had information programs about safe abortions, 1925 - President Obama was "Warholised")

End.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Rubbing Obama's Lamp

January 20th, 2009 – An estimated 2 million people are expected this Tuesday for President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden to be sworn in as the American leaders of the next 4 years. Security will be extrordinarily over the top for this third president from Illinois and surely some organisers are aware that if just a hint of panic strikes the crowd we will have an unimaginable riot on our hands. That being said, Obama couldn’t care less, he is busy. In 24 hours, he will deliver his inaugural address, the most important speech of his life. Lewinskys, cherry trees, black lovechilds, watergates, misunderestimates and assasinations may be remembered for a while but it is the inaugural adress that can potentially traverse the centuries and grant immortality to an administration. In fact, the only four president that didn’t give an adress are Chester A. Arthur, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and Andrew Johnson (better known as ‘Who?’). Furthermore, as some other columnists have stated, Obama is seen by the mainstream media as ‘ The Magic Negro’. He is supposed to project a royal sense of youthful confidence while he rectifies the recession, as he justifies the last 50 years of the civil rights movement, fulfills Martin Luther King’s ‘dream’, as he pulls all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan yet brings undying democracy to them, as he personally cures AIDS and as he never EVER lets Michelle forget she’s a woman. As for me, I will simply be happy with a memorable inauguration and with 8 years devoid of Bushes.

Here are some memorable inauguration ceremonies from past American presidents :

In 1776, George Washington was still very tainted by the absolute monarchies of the Old World and was accordingly regal. He spoke from an elegant carriage and gave out specific instructions that no one was to touch him and that no one was allowed to sit down in his illustrious presence. The next few presidents were much more careful of their projected appearance.

In 1829, president Andrew Jackson’s carrige from the Capitol to the White House was followed by the cheers of a thousand black and white men. They followed him rigth into the White House and were encouraged to go shake his hand. Witnesses described that day as being the first true expression of democracy in the western world since the rule of ancient Athens.

In 1861, another president from Illinois faced great hardships and hastely tried to solve them without success. Abraham Lincoln stated in his inaugural speech : “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”. It denotes a great irony of history that the American civil war broke out days later and led to the emacipation of American slaves.

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected at the head of a superpower and Adolf Hitler at the head of another. More than a threat from militaristic, Nazi Germany, FDR had to lift spirits and an economy out of the gutters of depression. He effectively did so with the radical economic policies of his ‘New Deal’ yet it all began with his inaugural address during which he reassured : “there is nothing to fear but fear itself”.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address is beyond my measly attempts at commentary and I will thus let an excerpt speak for itself, attesting to the timeless quality of his words : “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. ...Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. ...And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”. He was specifically referring to the Cold War against Communism yet the words speak true throughout every major conflict that America has had or will ever encounter.

Finally, we will vividly remember George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2005 inaugurations as painful and embarrassing. First in 2001, he was the first president in a very long time who did not walk from the Capitol to the White House. From the thousands upon thousands of protesters booing and screaming at him, he was forced to jump into his limo and dash behing the gates of the White House, evading and actively ignoring critique for the next 8 years. In 2005, he didn’t even try to reconciliate with the people (with the war in Iraq and all, he was even less popular). There were even more protests organised by dozens of interest groups against the bumbling disaster-waiting-tohappen that was President Bush Jr..

On the 20th of January, 2009, it will be a welcome and refreshing change to see the Americans enjoy the leader they have chosen.

(Pictured: President Bush was figuratively beat up by bad approval ratings and literally when he choked on a pretzel and fell - Obama will grant three wishes to everyone who truly believes in him, or maybe not)

End.

Monday, January 12, 2009

61 years of vicious circles

January 12th, 2009 – The Israeli-Palestinian conflict enters a third week as the Israeli army has begun encroaching on heavily-populated urban areas. Until now, the fighting was restricted to long-distance missile strikes by the Palestinian Hamas on Southern Israel (9 last night) and to strategic air strikes by the Israeli army on the Palestinian Gaza Strip (12 last night). Although the Israeli gouvernment denies its escalation of the conflict, a spokesman (Mark Regev) admits they are currently training thousands more infantry for a possible ground invasion of Palestinian territory. Furthermore, Mr. Regev insists that Israel’s military campaign into the Gaza Strip is purely defensive and aims to stop the Hamas missile strikes on its own land. Meanwhile, 15 Israelis have perished in the fighting and as many as 900 Palestinians, as much as a quarter of them being civilians, have lost their lives.

The human crisis provoked by the perpetual Israeli-Muslim conflict remains difficult to ascertain because the Israeli gouvernment has not allowed the international press access to the affected regions. It is also impossible for international aid workers to assist the damaged zones or for the local emergency services to possibly deal with the massive amount of casualties in Gaza therefore the casualties can only increase from here on out. The International community and especially the UN representatives to the Middle-East (former British Prime-minister Tony Blair), are promoting an immediate ceasefire yet both the HAMAS and Israeli heads of state have categorically refused to abide by the calls of peace: “Nobody should be allowed to decide for us if we are allowed to strike” claimed Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert.

We can seldom predict the future when analysing armed international conflicts yet this particular context provides us with an impressive amount of history. Indeed, we can observe several repetitions of brief, armed conflicts at regular intervals since the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. Additionally, one can observe the inefficiency of international mediation, especially by the United Nations who have been involved since the very beginning.

The UNTSO or United Nations Truce Supervision Organization was the very first peacekeeping mission attempted by the United Nations. Still operational today, it is therefore the oldest peace mission by the UN and has little or nothing to show for it.

Not 24 hours after the State of Israel was proclaimed (May 14th, 1948), a conflict broke out when an Arab league (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine) began attacking Israel. The UN quickly mediated a truce and the Middle East has been politically stable and peaceful ever since.

End.

…actually, you may have guessed that the truce lasted but a few days and the UN mediator was assassinated. The following decade was host to constant or even increasing blood shed as the Arab world reviled the Israeli presence on their ancestral lands and as the unarmed UN garrisons of UNTSO only had the mandate to observe and report possible violations of the successive cease-fire agreements. From their headquarters in Jerusalem and from their eventual observation posts across the Middle East, the UNTSO soldiers took note of Arab and Israeli complaints about the opposing side. You may again have guessed that this secretarial role played by the UN was largely reactionary to the conflicts of 1948 yet to this day; the mandate of the UN in the Middle East remains static and has never truly confronted the relational and diplomatic problems between the countries concerned. They have rather consisted of a minimal presence that observes and reports; it DOES nothing.

Further on in history, the Suez Crisis of 1956, the six-day war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973 represent only three major examples of escalating tension, outbreak of war and international-community mediated truces. Again with the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, the United Nations were completely powerless, and seemingly unwilling to intervene if we consider the unchanging nature of UNTSO’s mandate, to prevent Arab-Israeli violence and could only help evacuate tourists.

This weekend, Olmert confirmed that a renewed cease-fire was close and thus we will once again have a UN mediated agreement that will really only be upheld and eventually broken by the warring factions and in no way influenced by the limp-wristed interventions of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.

(Pictured: Israel/Palestine in 1948 - Israel/Palestine in 2009)

Happy new year; now go and repeat history.

End.