8.15.2011
Resurrection
Time to drag this thing out of mothballs. I'll be trying to update this fairly regularly in the future, as I'm realizing that I have a lot to say again.
3.11.2009
Tragedy
I just read a tragic story about an atheist father and mother after their infant son died 2 days after he was born. The father is struggling to figure out how to tell his family and friends that their assurances that they are praying for him, their words about God's Plan and their surety that the family will be reunited again in the afterlife are not only useless, but insulting and harmful to him, his wife and their process of grief. He doesn't agree, he doesn't believe in a divine plan, he expects to never meet his son again and expressing such things to him merely show that they don't understand his beliefs, or they don't care to.
While someone's prayers and assurances of divine oversight are surely heartfelt, it is insensitive to offer them to someone you know doesn't agree. And it is downright rude and disrespectful to continue to do so if they have expressed their desire not to hear unhelpful things. Kindness and frustration at seeing someone suffer prompts us to offer what little we can, but it is arrogant to continue to offer another person the kinds of condolences that would help you but don't mean anything to them. Don't hesistate to offer your expressions if you know someone shares your beliefs, but how hard is it to leave out your particular beliefs if you know they don't share your beliefs or you're unsure. We all have statements of condolence or sorrow at our disposal, simple things to say you care, that you'll miss the person who is gone or that you hope their pain and loss fades to fond memories.
When someone dies, we should desire to help those hurt most by the loss. If you care for the grieving, it is your responsibility as a friend and understanding person to help them in the way that is most helpful to them, not to you. And the best way to help someone, regardless of their religious beliefs, is not to offer platitudes or expressions of sorrow, either religious or secular. The way you help someone move on and recover from grief and loss is by being exactly what you were before the tragedy - family, a friend, a shoulder to cry on, a person to have a beer with, whatever. Help them rediscover the joy where your lives intersect, and the pain will fade all the quicker for your effort. Being something to them is far better than saying something to them.
Lastly, an inspiring thought on what it is to be alive, from Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins.
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
12.22.2008
Mortality
I like the idea that I'll live forever (or at least a very much longer time than humans do now), that medical advancements will eliminate aging and disease within my lifetime.
But I think the only way to live life effectively will be to always life such that if I died in the next moment, my life would still have had meaning and substance.
"You've given your whole life to be where you are now. Was it worth it?" (Unknown)
I think, at this point, I'd say yes. But I never forget John Stuart Mill on happiness: "Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so." Better to fix yourself on some other goal, thus happiness will be an attribute you spontaneously gain upon the way.
12.12.2008
12.11.2008
Society's Fundamental Unit
(Edit: This thing rambles to some extent, but it's a blog, not a thesis, so fuck it)
I've spent the last couple of days listening and analysing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Varnum v. Brien, which is the case in which the District Court in Iowa declared the law that defines marriage as only valid between a man and a woman is unconstitutional under the Iowa Constitution. Now, there's tons to wade through here, but I won't go into the whole thing. Suffice it to say, I think defense counsel got up and argued against himself, alternately making the case that marriage is and also is not a fundamental right, and then was followed by a superb argument by plaitiffs' counsel. Bad day for homophobes in Iowa. But something the defense brought up consistently, and is often used in argument by opponents of gay marriage equality, and I want to take a bit of time to examine this proposition:
The family is the fundamental unit of society.
This is the assertion, that our entire society is built upon the family, and that without the family, society crumbles. I'm sorry, but no, I think this is obviously incorrect, in the context of the rule of law.
Here in the United States, we were founded on clear principles. They begin in the Declaration of Independence and are further championed through the United States Constitution and all of its amendments. One thing that is fundamentally clear is that society is not based on families. Our society and culture, the rules we live by, the behaviors we tolerate, the punishments we assay and every other aspect of what defines our culture is based on the individual, not the family. The essence of every single article in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, speaks to the rights of each individual person. Never, in any of these documents, is the rule of law or basis of society dependent, in any way, upon the rights of families. In no way does a family have more rights than an individual, save where the cumulative rights of multiple people may be summed in any analysis. A family cannot squelch the free speech rights of a member upon reaching the age of majority, nor can the family overrun her right to vote if she is otherwise qualified.
The assertion that the family is the fundamental unit of society is misleading, and brings irrelevancies into the argument. It is easy to nod and agree when somebody states that the family is the fundamental unit of society, because the majority of us (a shrinking majority) were, in fact, raised under the auspices of married parents and our siblings. This family provided our closest companions and most important formative figures, so obviously in the raising of a child depends greatly upon the functioning of this family unit. It is simple to take this a step further and say that the family is this fundamental unit because it is the unit that has the greatest impact upon our upbringing.
But suddenly, we are talking about who different things, one of which is irrelevant in questions of fundamental rights of humans, of Americans. The situation in which the majority of us were raised is a fact that is unrelated to what rights we have as individuals, both within that family and in the context of society at large. One does not gain or lose rights based on whether he or she was raised by a stereotypical nuclear family, a single mother or in a multi-generational household. One does not gain or lose rights based on the functioning of that family unit. The family itself does not, in any case, have more or even different rights than any individual. I would go so far as to say that a family has no fundamental, inalienable rights at all, save for the collective rights of the individuals it is comprised of.
The individual has all the rights under the highest law of the United States, and while families may gain some rights under laws written, they may never come at the expense of the fundamental rights of the individuals within those families, except perhaps in the case of those who willingly choose to surrender some rights in order to enter marriage. But wives do not surrender their right to privacy - their husbands cannot spy on them. Husbands do not surrender their rights to own and maintain firearms - the wife cannot unilaterally remove them. Disputes along these lines may lead to voluntary surrender, or the dissolution of the marriage itself, but at no point are rights taken away. Even those that are voluntarily surrendered are instantly restored upon the divorce, which is possible through unilateral action by a single party within the marriage. When an individual's fundamental right is reasserted, it takes precedence over all other situational and granted rights; you may have to give up those rights granted under the law, but they never prevent you from going back.
Under the auspices of the rule of law, the family is most certainly not the basic unit of society, the individual is. Our principles of rights are based on the notion that fundamental rights are inherent, not granted, and the government serves only to protect and guarantee them, not determine who does or does not get them. Fundamental rights are inherent to all humans, and here in the United States we explicitly name and protect those rights we, at any given time, agree are fundamental rights. At no point do those rights become greater or lesser due to any family situation.
So perhaps part of this is a semantic distinction, as families are, and have historically been, the fundamental units in which the majority of children are raised into members of society. But these families are not the fundamental unit under the law - that distinction lies with persons. By protecting the rights of every person, we protect the rights of all groups. If any groups are protected over persons, then individual liberties can be cast aside. If families are the fundamental unit, then that means persons who are not in families lack equal protection of their own rights, which is explicitly forbidden by constitutional law in the United States. Despite any function any families provide to society, any benefit, these attributes of families never override the core rights of the individuals that comprise them.
Now, whether the state has an interest in promoting "healthy" families is a completely different question, and also brings a whole mess of questions about what constitutes a healthy family. But the core of our law rests on the foundational principle that rights lie with individuals, and it does not matter what groups they may or may not be a part of, their fundamental rights do not change. No matter what inherent rights a person ever voluntarily gives up in order to enter into marriage, to gain someone's trust or for the furtherance of any other pursuit, those rights are never permanently gone save through the most egregious violations of societal behavior standards. Marriage entails nothing of the sort, so it never, at any point, supersedes the rights of the individual.
Thus the fundamental unit of society, when engaged in a discussion about our inherent rights, is the individual, not the family.
11.25.2008
The Resurrection of Neanderthal Man
To get started, an article from Slate (a site that, I must admit, I often re-underestimate, but nevertheless consistently makes me think): http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/
Alright, so the article leaves a big question on the table, regarding the cloning of homo neanderthalensis from the reconstructed genetic code of frozen and other individual neanderthals. If this sounds like Jurassic Park, then you are right on track, because that quite literally the process. It's incredibly unlikely that the ressurrection of a dinosaur species ever happens, simply because it's incredibly unlikely than any DNA survives for 65,000,000 years (or more, in most cases) without almost complete degradation. Wooly mammoths and neanderthals, by contrast, are only a few tens of thousands of years old and there are many specimens that have been encased in ice since the moment of their deaths. Scientists estimate that we have enough genetic material to reconstruct 70% of the wooly mammoth genome, and I haven't seen an estimate for the neanderthal in terms of completion, but I know there is a large, active project seeking to sequence the neanderthal genome in the same way we've mapped the human, chimpanzee and other genomes.
I'll leave wooly mammoths for now, except to echo my brother's first comment about the possibility of their resurrection: "I want to ride one!"
Neanderthal Man, however, is a very interesting species, though. It is the closest relative we humans have. If we share 98% of our genetic code with chimps, we can expect somewhere around 99% to be common with neanderthals. But the genetic similarities are, in an odd way, abstract. Despite the actual code and measurable differences, a difference in base pair sequences isn't something we can conceptualize easily. What is striking about Neanderthal Man is how much like us he is. He had fire. He used tools. He used weapons. He hunted in coordinated groups. He did clever things like stampeding packs of animals off cliffs. He wore animal skins as clothing. Neanderthal Man did many of the things we now think of as "unique" to humans. He helped us (and an ending ice age) drive the wooly mammoth extinct.
And then we made him extinct.
That's an interesting part of this whole debate that I find fascinating. We directly competed with the neanderthals in Europe for thousands of years; tens of thousands. And we won. We survived better, thrived and took all the food. We probably had better weapons (even if neanderthals probably had the advantage in brute strength). And, directly or indirectly, we killed them all. Obviously this was long before modern science or even anything approaching a systematic approach to ethics, but there is precious little difference between us killing all the neanderthals and white settlers killing Native Americans. Ok, that's not true, the slaughter of the native tribes of the Americas was decidedly more malevolent. In the end, however, Native Americans did survive and are just as human as we are. Neanderthals all died, many of them because of us.
This gets trickier when you look at what neanderthals are, and how we should view their species. There's a debate over whether neanderthals are a different species or a subspecies. I highly, highly doubt - as the Slate author points out - that any religious groups will glom onto neanderthals as "real" humans, so they won't have a bit of a problem with genetic experimentation on neanderthals if we resurrect the genome. As long as we don't use human stem cells as the basic building blocks, of course.
The prospect of resurrecting Neanderthal Man (or woman, obviously, I'm simply using an established nomenclature for those who don't read much anthropology) brings all these decidedly odd ethical questions to the fore. Are they human? Should they be given the same rights as humans? Can we just keep them in the lab like so many mice?
Do we have an obligation to bring them back since we are a major cause of their demise?
In my opinion, we should bring back the neanderthals if we can. There are so many questions that could be answered, questions not only about neanderthals themselves, but about our own evolution as well. Their brains were bigger than ours. This does not mean they were more intelligent, massive animals such as whales have larger physical brains but lack human intelligence. But neanderthal man probably had a similar neocortex, which is the key to many of our higher functions. Did they speak? Could they read? Were they intelligent enough to be able to assimilate into human culture if they were raised like a human child? Did they really look that different?
Whatever we learn, neanderthals look eerily similar to humans in light of the fact that we consider them a different species. To a different race, we would probably be indistinguishable, much as most humans wouldn't see much difference between chimpanzees and bonobos. The first neanderthals created obviously could not be "released" upon the world; that would almost certainly be disastrous. But they should be protected, absolutely. And my suspicion is that, exposed to human culture, they would be able to ask for their rights. Should that happen, I can see no reason not to grant those rights, although that is doubtless an incredible political shitstorm. Neanderthals are likely to be so humanlike it really freaks us out as a species, and challenges us in more fundamental ways than any other scientific discover. In fact, I think the only thing that could fuck up our collective assumptions about ourselves more is the discovery of life on another planet. But bringing a species back from extinction?
I think the greatest benefit to us as the human species would be the humbling it would bring. We think of ourselves as so special. Maybe I expect too much of the neanderthal's mental capabilities, but from what we've seen from species as distant as the chimp and bonobo leads me to the initial expection that neanderthals will be able to, at least, vocally communicate in modern human language; they have virtually identical "voice boxes." They might be able to read; though we know little about their eyes physically, their eyesight is probably even better than ours since they were much more carnivorous than our ancestors, necessitating sharp eyesight for hunting. Many other aspects of ourselves we think of as so unique and extraordinary would be shown to be just another step in a long line of evolutionary development. Maybe there is something especially great about us and our brains that make us beyond the reach of even the closest relative we have ever had...
But, to be completely honest...I would not be surprised to see a neanderthal, a "cave man" or "cave woman," a non-human, show all the traits and abilities we would attribute to the average human being. They might be more or less intelligent on average; we really have no idea.
Wow, this has been long, but suddenly I'm overcome by the possibility that neanderthals were smarter than we are. That their genetic makeup leads to overall higher cognitive capacities. That sounds odd to us, since we survived, but it wouldn't be the first time a more "intelligent" species was outcompeted by a "dumber" species, causing the first to go extinct. I'm even going to now repudiate statements I made earlier in this post without going back to delete them, because it shows my thought process in this: maybe we didn't have better tools and weapons. Their advantage in strength was probably still there, but they were carnivores and we have been omnivores. They were more reliant on hunted food, and predators are, in general, more intelligent than their prey. Homo sapiens was a hunter as well, so we can't know for sure at this point. But what if homo neanderthalensis was smarter than us but much more dependent on a meat-based diet, whereas we were more flexible omnivores? What we consider the beginning of modern human society and culture did not begin to develop until after we began to practice agriculture, and this development of larger societal groups, the specialization and division of labor it enables is what unlocked the learning capacity of the modern human. What if neanderthals were, genetically, better equipped for this development, but the kickoff never came? Homo sapiens lived in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for millenia upon millenia before groups in the middle east figured out this growing crops thing. What if neanderthals simply died out before they got that chance?
What if neanderthals were genetically equipped for higher general competence in what we consider uniquely human mental attributes?
What if they really were smarter, all they needed was the foundation of a larger, agricultural society, but they died off first? If they were too dependent on eating other animals to survive the changing conditions at the end of the last Ice Age, and it was merely that homo sapiens was better able to digest and derive nutrition from the barest scraps of plants? What if neanderthals just died before they got their chance to found society.
What if homo neanderthalensis is a better "human" than homo sapiens?
Alright, so the article leaves a big question on the table, regarding the cloning of homo neanderthalensis from the reconstructed genetic code of frozen and other individual neanderthals. If this sounds like Jurassic Park, then you are right on track, because that quite literally the process. It's incredibly unlikely that the ressurrection of a dinosaur species ever happens, simply because it's incredibly unlikely than any DNA survives for 65,000,000 years (or more, in most cases) without almost complete degradation. Wooly mammoths and neanderthals, by contrast, are only a few tens of thousands of years old and there are many specimens that have been encased in ice since the moment of their deaths. Scientists estimate that we have enough genetic material to reconstruct 70% of the wooly mammoth genome, and I haven't seen an estimate for the neanderthal in terms of completion, but I know there is a large, active project seeking to sequence the neanderthal genome in the same way we've mapped the human, chimpanzee and other genomes.
I'll leave wooly mammoths for now, except to echo my brother's first comment about the possibility of their resurrection: "I want to ride one!"
Neanderthal Man, however, is a very interesting species, though. It is the closest relative we humans have. If we share 98% of our genetic code with chimps, we can expect somewhere around 99% to be common with neanderthals. But the genetic similarities are, in an odd way, abstract. Despite the actual code and measurable differences, a difference in base pair sequences isn't something we can conceptualize easily. What is striking about Neanderthal Man is how much like us he is. He had fire. He used tools. He used weapons. He hunted in coordinated groups. He did clever things like stampeding packs of animals off cliffs. He wore animal skins as clothing. Neanderthal Man did many of the things we now think of as "unique" to humans. He helped us (and an ending ice age) drive the wooly mammoth extinct.
And then we made him extinct.
That's an interesting part of this whole debate that I find fascinating. We directly competed with the neanderthals in Europe for thousands of years; tens of thousands. And we won. We survived better, thrived and took all the food. We probably had better weapons (even if neanderthals probably had the advantage in brute strength). And, directly or indirectly, we killed them all. Obviously this was long before modern science or even anything approaching a systematic approach to ethics, but there is precious little difference between us killing all the neanderthals and white settlers killing Native Americans. Ok, that's not true, the slaughter of the native tribes of the Americas was decidedly more malevolent. In the end, however, Native Americans did survive and are just as human as we are. Neanderthals all died, many of them because of us.
This gets trickier when you look at what neanderthals are, and how we should view their species. There's a debate over whether neanderthals are a different species or a subspecies. I highly, highly doubt - as the Slate author points out - that any religious groups will glom onto neanderthals as "real" humans, so they won't have a bit of a problem with genetic experimentation on neanderthals if we resurrect the genome. As long as we don't use human stem cells as the basic building blocks, of course.
The prospect of resurrecting Neanderthal Man (or woman, obviously, I'm simply using an established nomenclature for those who don't read much anthropology) brings all these decidedly odd ethical questions to the fore. Are they human? Should they be given the same rights as humans? Can we just keep them in the lab like so many mice?
Do we have an obligation to bring them back since we are a major cause of their demise?
In my opinion, we should bring back the neanderthals if we can. There are so many questions that could be answered, questions not only about neanderthals themselves, but about our own evolution as well. Their brains were bigger than ours. This does not mean they were more intelligent, massive animals such as whales have larger physical brains but lack human intelligence. But neanderthal man probably had a similar neocortex, which is the key to many of our higher functions. Did they speak? Could they read? Were they intelligent enough to be able to assimilate into human culture if they were raised like a human child? Did they really look that different?
Whatever we learn, neanderthals look eerily similar to humans in light of the fact that we consider them a different species. To a different race, we would probably be indistinguishable, much as most humans wouldn't see much difference between chimpanzees and bonobos. The first neanderthals created obviously could not be "released" upon the world; that would almost certainly be disastrous. But they should be protected, absolutely. And my suspicion is that, exposed to human culture, they would be able to ask for their rights. Should that happen, I can see no reason not to grant those rights, although that is doubtless an incredible political shitstorm. Neanderthals are likely to be so humanlike it really freaks us out as a species, and challenges us in more fundamental ways than any other scientific discover. In fact, I think the only thing that could fuck up our collective assumptions about ourselves more is the discovery of life on another planet. But bringing a species back from extinction?
I think the greatest benefit to us as the human species would be the humbling it would bring. We think of ourselves as so special. Maybe I expect too much of the neanderthal's mental capabilities, but from what we've seen from species as distant as the chimp and bonobo leads me to the initial expection that neanderthals will be able to, at least, vocally communicate in modern human language; they have virtually identical "voice boxes." They might be able to read; though we know little about their eyes physically, their eyesight is probably even better than ours since they were much more carnivorous than our ancestors, necessitating sharp eyesight for hunting. Many other aspects of ourselves we think of as so unique and extraordinary would be shown to be just another step in a long line of evolutionary development. Maybe there is something especially great about us and our brains that make us beyond the reach of even the closest relative we have ever had...
But, to be completely honest...I would not be surprised to see a neanderthal, a "cave man" or "cave woman," a non-human, show all the traits and abilities we would attribute to the average human being. They might be more or less intelligent on average; we really have no idea.
Wow, this has been long, but suddenly I'm overcome by the possibility that neanderthals were smarter than we are. That their genetic makeup leads to overall higher cognitive capacities. That sounds odd to us, since we survived, but it wouldn't be the first time a more "intelligent" species was outcompeted by a "dumber" species, causing the first to go extinct. I'm even going to now repudiate statements I made earlier in this post without going back to delete them, because it shows my thought process in this: maybe we didn't have better tools and weapons. Their advantage in strength was probably still there, but they were carnivores and we have been omnivores. They were more reliant on hunted food, and predators are, in general, more intelligent than their prey. Homo sapiens was a hunter as well, so we can't know for sure at this point. But what if homo neanderthalensis was smarter than us but much more dependent on a meat-based diet, whereas we were more flexible omnivores? What we consider the beginning of modern human society and culture did not begin to develop until after we began to practice agriculture, and this development of larger societal groups, the specialization and division of labor it enables is what unlocked the learning capacity of the modern human. What if neanderthals were, genetically, better equipped for this development, but the kickoff never came? Homo sapiens lived in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for millenia upon millenia before groups in the middle east figured out this growing crops thing. What if neanderthals simply died out before they got that chance?
What if neanderthals were genetically equipped for higher general competence in what we consider uniquely human mental attributes?
What if they really were smarter, all they needed was the foundation of a larger, agricultural society, but they died off first? If they were too dependent on eating other animals to survive the changing conditions at the end of the last Ice Age, and it was merely that homo sapiens was better able to digest and derive nutrition from the barest scraps of plants? What if neanderthals just died before they got their chance to found society.
What if homo neanderthalensis is a better "human" than homo sapiens?
11.07.2008
The Extension of Rights
Barack Obama, as President-Elect, has already directed the creation of http://www.change.gov/, the vision of his upcoming administration. One particular feature of the site that caught my eye was a request for ideas to change this nation. So I will oblige them by submitting my vision. The text of the submission is as follows:
I find myself in a tough position as an American, and I hope that the message of unity and dignity presented by President-Elect Obama will be the beginning of a fundamental change to that position.
What I mean by a "tough" position is this. First, and foremost, I am committed to the principles of the United States Constitution, those principles which have been the bedrock for the development of the strongest, richest and most free country on this planet. The basis for the separation of the 13 original colonies from Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence, the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" joins with the Preamble to the Constitution, that we have a "government of the People, by the People and for the People," to create a foundation for freedom and liberty that is unmatched in world history to date. These documents forged a new, unique nation that has since grown in a never-ending quest to improve itself, to create an ever more perfect union and, in the process, set us down a path to the greatness and strength we now enjoy.
However, what makes the greatness of this nation difficult for me is the strong conviction that these were not American rights set down in our seminal documents. They are human rights. The only part of these principles that is special to America is that we, as a people, have enacted them, fought for them and have at times struggled to live them. We, as a nation, are due special historical status only in our realization that freedom is not free, and that our predecessors have fought and died to secure these essential human rights for the citizens of the United States. They are not special American rights, they are inherent human rights that we refuse to deny any of our citizens.
To rectify this, I hope Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Congress, the Several States and the People can come together to extend the security and guarantee of these rights to all Citizens of Earth. We are a nation unmatched in history in influence, power and ability to shape world events, to affect the lives of every human being who lives, and it is incumbent upon us that we use this power to leave not only the United States a better place than we found it, but the entire world. We must leave the world, collectively, a more peaceful, secure place and work every moment to take the basic rights we hold as non-negotiable for ourselves and secure them for every human being on the face of the Earth.
We must lead by bringing everyone up to our level, not sinking down to those we hold untenable the treatment of each other within this nation. We must affect change by being change. We must strive to live up to our own ideals in every action we take, everywhere in the world.
To that end, I believe the Obama Administration should and I ask it to take the position that any person, anywhere in the world, when under the influence, control, or military occupation of the United States or in any way subject to our discretion, will be granted the same rights, privileges and protections as a natural-born citizen of the United States. From Due Process of Law to Freedom of Speech, we must extend these basic liberties, universally, where we are able. Undoubtedly, we will incur cost to ourselves to provide these rights to those who do not contribute to their maintenance within the United States, but we, as a global leader, as an affluent and privileged society and as a people of principle, must be willing to shoulder the burden of extending the ideals that have raised us so high. To do less is to fail to live up to our own ideals.
After the initial support of the Obama Administration, this principle should be extended into United States law and, ultimately, written into the United States Constitution, to explicitly and unambiguously state our willingness to take up this obligation. To show the world that we will ever devote ourselves not to American prosperity and supremacy, but to human rights, human liberty and human freedom. There is no inherent difference between an American and any other person on this planet; it is only a favorable turn of historical events that led us to live here, to be lifted out of the despotism that has reigned over the world, and still reigns over the majority of the world's population. A true leader does not stand above the rest, secure in its place and only trying to ascend to a yet higher position. Rather, the great leader reaches back, extends a steadfast hand in aid, bringing all else along as it continues the slow climb to the ever-unreachable goal of a more perfect Earth.
Despite the obvious presence of obstacles and details, this should be the ideal: to treat all humans as if they were United States Citizens. To extend ourselves, our collective resources and will, not as world police or as enforcer of our opinions, but as a secure society willing to exert itself to secure for other societies, for all individuals, those rights we ourselves consider essential and inalienable.
This, I believe, is our true path, if we really believe in these principles we espouse. If we are truly great, if we are truly the world's first step towards peace and unity, then there can be no other path for us.
I find myself in a tough position as an American, and I hope that the message of unity and dignity presented by President-Elect Obama will be the beginning of a fundamental change to that position.
What I mean by a "tough" position is this. First, and foremost, I am committed to the principles of the United States Constitution, those principles which have been the bedrock for the development of the strongest, richest and most free country on this planet. The basis for the separation of the 13 original colonies from Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence, the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" joins with the Preamble to the Constitution, that we have a "government of the People, by the People and for the People," to create a foundation for freedom and liberty that is unmatched in world history to date. These documents forged a new, unique nation that has since grown in a never-ending quest to improve itself, to create an ever more perfect union and, in the process, set us down a path to the greatness and strength we now enjoy.
However, what makes the greatness of this nation difficult for me is the strong conviction that these were not American rights set down in our seminal documents. They are human rights. The only part of these principles that is special to America is that we, as a people, have enacted them, fought for them and have at times struggled to live them. We, as a nation, are due special historical status only in our realization that freedom is not free, and that our predecessors have fought and died to secure these essential human rights for the citizens of the United States. They are not special American rights, they are inherent human rights that we refuse to deny any of our citizens.
To rectify this, I hope Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Congress, the Several States and the People can come together to extend the security and guarantee of these rights to all Citizens of Earth. We are a nation unmatched in history in influence, power and ability to shape world events, to affect the lives of every human being who lives, and it is incumbent upon us that we use this power to leave not only the United States a better place than we found it, but the entire world. We must leave the world, collectively, a more peaceful, secure place and work every moment to take the basic rights we hold as non-negotiable for ourselves and secure them for every human being on the face of the Earth.
We must lead by bringing everyone up to our level, not sinking down to those we hold untenable the treatment of each other within this nation. We must affect change by being change. We must strive to live up to our own ideals in every action we take, everywhere in the world.
To that end, I believe the Obama Administration should and I ask it to take the position that any person, anywhere in the world, when under the influence, control, or military occupation of the United States or in any way subject to our discretion, will be granted the same rights, privileges and protections as a natural-born citizen of the United States. From Due Process of Law to Freedom of Speech, we must extend these basic liberties, universally, where we are able. Undoubtedly, we will incur cost to ourselves to provide these rights to those who do not contribute to their maintenance within the United States, but we, as a global leader, as an affluent and privileged society and as a people of principle, must be willing to shoulder the burden of extending the ideals that have raised us so high. To do less is to fail to live up to our own ideals.
After the initial support of the Obama Administration, this principle should be extended into United States law and, ultimately, written into the United States Constitution, to explicitly and unambiguously state our willingness to take up this obligation. To show the world that we will ever devote ourselves not to American prosperity and supremacy, but to human rights, human liberty and human freedom. There is no inherent difference between an American and any other person on this planet; it is only a favorable turn of historical events that led us to live here, to be lifted out of the despotism that has reigned over the world, and still reigns over the majority of the world's population. A true leader does not stand above the rest, secure in its place and only trying to ascend to a yet higher position. Rather, the great leader reaches back, extends a steadfast hand in aid, bringing all else along as it continues the slow climb to the ever-unreachable goal of a more perfect Earth.
Despite the obvious presence of obstacles and details, this should be the ideal: to treat all humans as if they were United States Citizens. To extend ourselves, our collective resources and will, not as world police or as enforcer of our opinions, but as a secure society willing to exert itself to secure for other societies, for all individuals, those rights we ourselves consider essential and inalienable.
This, I believe, is our true path, if we really believe in these principles we espouse. If we are truly great, if we are truly the world's first step towards peace and unity, then there can be no other path for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)