Body Image of the Day

beauty

“Does this mirror make me look fat?”

Body image and weight are extremely controversial subjects. On the one side we have a fashion and entertainment industry that feels that even celebrities, professional full-time good-lookers, need improvement. On the other side we have a vicious pushback against the prevailing body image ideal, encouraging people (women in particular, as is always the case) to love their shapes.

Now, I believe that today’s prevailing body image is a little warped, and I’m strongly against retouching models to create an artificial, unrealistic standard of beauty. But I’m going to have to come out against the “fat pride” movement here, for a few reasons:

The “fat is beautiful” body image is the one that’s warped. Fat has been a luxury throughout most of human history. The average person could hope to have enough food to survive, maybe even live healthily. Today’s widespread obesity in the first world is an aberration caused by the availability of cheap food in abundance, the prevalence of unhealthy food in larger-than-life portions, and sedentary lifestyles with little-to-no physical activity. Being fat is as unnatural as being rail-thin like the much-derided size 0 models.

Fat equals unfit and unhealthy. Comparing body image isn’t just a question of aesthetics. A fat-celebrating ideal is objectively inferior because it promotes an unhealthy and incapable lifestyle. Now, there are healthy, fit people with love handles. I’m not talking about that at all; that’s just another shape of fit. I’m talking about having a shape that inhibits health and fitness, and that includes being too thin. Whatever shape we strive for should be healthy and in good physical shape.

Being fat is indicative of a character flaw. Pro-fat advocates often to paint an overweight body as “just the way I am,” and play the persecution card when criticized or made to feel less than ideal. Being fat isn’t a birth shape. It’s a choice, one that reveals a character flaw. Lest we forget, gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, conceived far before obesity became a widespread phenomenon. An inflated physical shape can reveal a lack of discipline, self-control, and self-respect, or deeper issues such as eating as a form of escapism from past trauma or daily struggles. Judging someone based solely on what’s on the inside is perfectly fine. Let’s just not forget that the outside can reflect the inside, and some outside symptoms can only exist if something inside is amiss.

Ideals are by definition outside the mainstream. A common complaint is that models don’t represent normal people. While I would like to see a greater range of shapes and sizes reflected by fashion models, I’m fine with them looking like something outside of what’s normal. That’s the point. Models represent an ideal, an ultimate goal to strive for, and forcing them to look like the average person removes the goal. One way or another, human society will esteem certain people as more attractive than others, whether or not it’s politically correct to do so publicly and openly. We should makes sure our ideal is a noble and healthy one, not try to dismantle the concept of an ideal altogether.

Now that I’ve risked coming off as a hater of the average person who has never had to deal with the real-world problems and insecurities plaguing the overweight, I should probably come clean and mention my struggle. Ever since I was a small child I’ve been overweight and out of shape. Part of it was due to a slow metabolism and a body that matured much later in life than the average person, but most of it was the simple, hard truth that I ate too much and exercised too little. I’ve struggled with my weight for decades. Been called cruel nicknames, the worst of them being Jabba the Hutt. Felt like a total failure for being unable to succeed at any sport. Lost a romantic partner of many years. After crying myself to sleep over it one too many times, I decided to change that. Now I’m finally in good shape, but my daily struggle isn’t over. It never will be. But it’s one that needs to happen. One must always struggle against one’s failings. Not celebrate them, and expect the world to join in the great lie that being fat is good.

Beauty comes in all different shapes and sizes. Society may have overreacted to the obesity crisis by worshipping unnaturally-thin models, but it is readjusting now. We as a society need role models to look up to and aspire to imitate in every area of life, and physical fitness is no exception. Naturally, we should always scrutinize this ideal and make sure that it is worthy of imitation. But we should never seek to destroy it when we fail to live up to its standards, even if it causes us to feel less than ideal from time to time. After all, is recognizing our flaws always a bad thing?

Whither Daddy?

orphaned

Everyone has a father. Not everyone has a daddy.

Never forget that. You might not have that problem, but rest assured, there are plenty who do. Some are orphaned. Some are abandoned by their fathers during childhood. Some never even know who their fathers were.

Some have fathers, adoptive fathers, or stepfathers in their lives. They may even live under the same roof with a father figure. But that doesn’t mean that person is “daddy.” You could live with your biological father who provides for you, is faithfully married to your mother, never mistreats you, and overall exhibits all the outward signs of being a good father. And yet that person will never never have that special place in your estimation and heart. You will never feel a deep affection or connection towards him. You will never admire him. You will never fully trust him. You will never want to grow up to be just like him, or marry a similar man.

However, those of us with no daddy aren’t always doomed to such a fate for the rest of our years. Whether we like it or not, boys will seek role models to emulate, and girls will look for that prince charming archetype to embody everything they want in a man. And neither come with a pre-approved list of potential daddy candidates; they seek and they find. That means that any of us could potentially become someone’s daddy. Maybe without even knowing it.

So that’s your challenge, men: be an awesome daddy. Don’t wait. You can start working on it now, even if you’re barely old enough to be able to read this. The world’s filled with desperate little ones yearning for an example to follow, and when they see a good one they will latch on and never let go. Be ready to be that example, that person they will never stop bragging about.

Everyone has a father. Not everyone has a daddy… but we all could really use one.

Debunking Edward Snowden’s Critics

snowden

Guest post by Daniel Noe

I just want to say unequivocally that 29-year-old NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a hero. I wish we had many more people like him (and Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, but that’s for another time), not fewer. He is a genuine patriot. He has done far more to bring accountability to government than ANY current Republican Congressman or Senator who sticks his chest out and says he believes in “limited government” and “the Constitution.”

Of course, there are many who hold the exact opposite view, that he is a traitor and not a hero. Such people include conservative commentators (!), retired military officials, and a number of Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Try as I might to understand their objections to the invaluable service Mr. Snowden provided our country, they just don’t make any sense.

Here, in no particular order, I will debunk the most pointed arguments his critics have leveled at him:

1. “He’s a high school dropout.”

This is just ridiculous, and a blatant personal attack. And this is only said to distract the listener or reader from learning about what it is Snowden really did. If it is wrong to drop out of high school, why didn’t these guys criticize Princess Diana? What about Thomas Edison? Benjamin Franklin? Albert Einstein? All these people dropped out of high school too, and that had no long-term effect on their character now, did it?

2. “He has endangered national security.”

Keep in mind that “national security” is an ambiguous phrase that is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. It pretty much means whatever a fearmongering, warmongering politician (like Lindsey Graham or John McCain) wants it to mean. In other words, it is a term that can easily be used to manipulate people into giving up their freedom. For over a decade, the American people (probably one of the most gullible in the world) have happily traded their liberty for security. And to quote Benjamin Franklin (one of my favorite Founding Fathers): “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally, I would much rather die a free person from terrorists than live under a tyrannical, fascist government that knows my every move.

3. “He has broken the law. He violated his agreement/oath to keep this information secret.”

I have a question for the people who make this claim: What if a law is unjust? Were abolitionists wrong to hide slaves just because slavery was the law of the land in America in the 1800s? Was Oskar Schindler wrong to hide Jews just because Adolf Hitler said that to do so was wrong? Was Sophie Scholl wrong in exposing the horrors of the Nazi government with her fellow patriots in the White Rose non-violent resistance group? I do fear that many of the authoritarians calling for Snowden’s head (who essentially believe anything the government says no matter what it does) would support the Nazis and the pro-slavery politicians if they lived in a different time. Obey the powers that be, right guys?

Another question: What about Mr. Snowden’s oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (specifically the Fourth Amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)? Turns out Edward was just following this oath and did not forget it, unlike 99.99 % of the other people (it seems) who “take” the oath.

Oh, and the government violated ITS agreement (the Constitution) with the American people first! Why don’t Snowden’s critics stand up for the rule of law? Why? Why is it his defenders who are doing so instead?

4. “He has fled to Communist China.”

Mr. Snowden has actually fled to Hong Kong. Surprisingly, the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank says that Hong Kong is the freest country in the world, even freer than the “land of the free,” the good old USA. Heritage adds that Hong Kong, despite technically being a ” Special Administrative Region” of China, “is self-governing on a day-to-day basis and enjoys a wide range of freedoms under a mini-constitution known as the Basic Law.” Nice try guys!

5. “He has aided our enemies.”

This is a statement with absolutely no substance to back it up. He did not sell secrets to what his critics would refer to as “our enemies.” They have presented no evidence with this charge. Furthermore, they essentially believe that the US government is NOT the greatest threat to our liberties, an absurd statement judging by how fascistic and totalitarian America has become since the beginning of the “war on terror.” In a way, Edward aided the greatest enemy to tyranny: an informed and alert public.

6. “These NSA programs are entirely legitimate. Besides I don’t have anything to hide. I’ve done nothing illegal.”

Many who supported the Patriot Act while it was being “debated” in 2001 said the same thing. Keep in mind, however, that it is not illegal to have imtimate relations with your spouse. It is not illegal to have an enlarged prostate or an overactive bladder or irritable bowel syndrome. It is not illegal to have cancer or other health issues. It is not illegal to keep money in a bank in a specific account. It is not even illegal to have an affair! But, just because you “did nothing illegal”, does that mean you really don’t care if the world knows such personal information? I challenge the people who still make such an argument to voluntarily disclose their sexual habits, health concerns, and bank account information. I mean, they have nothing to hide, right?

As Michael Rozeff explains:

We do not want privacy only to conceal our wrong-doings. That’s why this argument fails. We want privacy for a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with hiding wrongs. We do not put up curtains or draw the shades to conceal wrongs. We do not keep our financial affairs to ourselves to hide crimes. We don’t conceal our social security numbers from people because we’re doing something wrong. We don’t invite anyone and everyone to listen in to our conversations, and it’s not because we’re plotting crimes. Does a child want his parents to broadcast his or her grades in school to everyone? Do children want their parents to tell everyone their habits and their imperfections? Children want privacy as much as adults. It comes natural. The demand for privacy has very, very little to do with concealing wrongs.

7. “He should have used the proper channels to communicate his concerns.”

As Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation explains:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says Snowden should have used established channels to raise his concerns, but there are no effective channels. Members of the congressional intelligence committees are prohibited from telling the public what they learn from their briefings. Two members of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, for years have warned — without disclosing secrets — that the Obama administration is interpreting the Patriot Act and related laws far more broadly than was ever intended by those who voted for those pieces of legislation. Their warnings have made no difference.

A court challenge wasn’t open to Snowden either. Glenn Greenwald, who published Snowden’s leaks in the Guardian, notes that for years the ACLU has tried to challenge the surveillance programs in court on Fourth Amendment grounds, but the Obama administration has blocked the effort by arguing that the ACLU has no standing to bring the suit. It’s a classic Catch-22. Since the surveillance is secret, no one can know if he has been spied on. But if no one knows, no one can go into court claiming to be a victim, and the government will argue that therefore the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the surveillance. Well played, Obama administration.

8. “He should turn himself in.”

Like Obama is really going to give this guy a fair trial, after how he literally caught the government with its pants down?! However, jurors can still acquit Snowden if they believe that the laws he was being prosecuted under were thought to be unjust! Ever heard of jury nullification? If not, read more about this perfectly legal (yet underrated) concept here.

9. “These NSA programs don’t break any laws. There is no evidence the NSA did any wrongdoing.”

Um, have they not heard of the Fourth Amendment? The spying done by the NSA is WARRANTLESS. That means it is illegal! End of story. Furthermore, it’s sad how some will justify these programs by taking every single word the official government’s website says about them as gospel.

Frankly, it’s a downright shame many will think that Edward Snowden is the enemy and not the federal government.

I believe that every single man and woman who works in government at any level has a moral obligation to expose clearly corrupt and unethical behavior by government officials, irregardless of what the law says. In fact, in the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws on the books, I wouldn’t be surprised that there just might be a long-forgotten about legal obligation as well.

A truly free society needs a government in which whistleblowers should have no qualms coming forward with immoral behavior being committed by “our” leaders. How else will government really be held accountable? Elections? Congress? The Courts? Been there, done that.

We are no different than communist Russia if we allow the government to spy on us (regardless of the reason they give, such as “keeping us safe.”) Remember what Ben Franklin said.

Daniel Noe is editor of WesternJournalism.com and editor-in-chief of EPAAbuse.com.

Liberty Rising: Follow the Youth

youth protest

The kids are going to be alright.

Never mind sky-high global unemployment. Or the looming collapse of the central banking system. Or social and political unrest. Today’s youth are going to make it through just fine.

Why? Because they want to be free.

That’s not to say that there won’t be difficult times ahead. There will be. But the next generation has the one tool that really matters in the upcoming struggle: a yearning to be free.

No matter how bright and sunny the world is, no matter how peaceful and prosperous a society, complacency will be its doom. An unwillingness to take charge of its own world will make a populace slow to respond to the challenges of its time and vulnerable to encroaching tyranny. When a people is of a free spirit, they will not only fight totalitarianism tooth-and-nail. They will also take charge of their existence and build for themselves any future they desire. With that mindset, anything is possible.

Liberty is rising. A bright future awaits. And the youth will lead the charge.

Silver Spoon Soldiers

soldiers relaxing

Morality face-off! Who’s the better man? The guy who joins the military right out of high school to pay the bills? Or the trust-fund baby who goes to college on his parents’ dime?

Our common sensibilities seem to side with the soldier on this one. Not mine. I’m going to have to with the privileged university student instead. He clearly displays more personal and social responsibility.

Now hear me out. To be fair, the life of the young soldier is more difficult and requires hard work, both of which build character. But that’s a discussion for another day. I’m talking about one thing, and one thing only: dependency.

You see, when you live off of your parents’ fortunes, you suck income off of a pair of individuals. These people have probably been planning their finances for years with you in mind, and voluntarily support their legally-adult children. And they can withdraw their support at any time if you push your luck too far.

The soldier, on the other hand, sucks finances from a whole country. These are individuals who didn’t plan on supporting him, and who only do so because they’ll be thrown in jail if they refuse. If at any time the people are dissatisfied with the soldier’s performance, too bad. They have to keep paying. And finally, let’s not forget that the soldier costs considerably more than even the swankiest education and lifestyle.

Soldier vs. spoiled student. Who’s the bigger parasite? The soldier. Hands down.

Transparency on Trial

bradley manning

Bradley Manning’s trial began yesterday. And our very future is at stake.

If you don’t know who Pfc. Manning is yet, now is the time to learn. After all, the embattled U.S. Army private’s future is directly linked to your own, wherever you may live. His struggle is our struggle. If he fails, our world will become considerably darker.

Bradley Manning is a U.S. Army private who is responsible for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to transparency organization extraordinaire WikiLeaks. He now stands trial for numerous charges which may lead to a lifetime of imprisonment for the young soldier. Judging from that summary, it would appear that Manning’s case is nothing but an internal issue for the American military, and therefore of no consequence to the rest of the country, or the world at large. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. You absolutely should care, because:

Manning exposed genuine war crimes, the most egregious of which is a now-infamous instance of an American helicopter callously murdering a group of civilians later revealed to be journalists working for Reuters. This reality as to the occupation of Iraq, and the greater so-called War on Terror, casts into doubt the validity of those conflicts entirely. The American people would likely never have supported such a conflict if they knew the entire truth.

The leaks have been “avenged” with a fury of dubious legality. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, since immediately following the leaks, has spent nearly a year hunkering down in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to stand trial. The allegations facing Assange? Rape. At best, the charges, even if true, were too conveniently-timed to have had nothing to do with the WikiLeaks case. At worst, it’s what Assange claims he intercepted British intelligence saying it was: a set-up. Bradley Manning has had it even worse, languishing in detention for years leading up to his trial, suffering cruel and illegal treatment before even having been convicted of anything. Note that neither of these two men lied, and the government they exposed is not even trying to justify its actions. It is simply trying to silence those who would bring its unjustifiable actions to light.

This case threatens to criminalize investigative journalism regarding government actions. Bradley Manning is being charged with aiding the enemy, based on the assumption that al-Qaeda could end up having access to the leaked information and subsequently use it against its sworn enemy, the United States. The link between making known to the taxpayer the misdeeds of U.S. military and aiding the enemy is tenuous at best. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. government itself, according to Senator Rand Paul, seems hell-bent on aiding al-Qaeda to further its aims in Syria.

This is not about treason. This is not about operational military privacy. This is about transparency. The question that the trial of Bradley Manning seeks to address is simple: Is the government the servant of, and therefore accountable to, the people?

That’s why you should care about the Bradley Manning case. Your right to recourse against government abuse, whether you are an American citizen or a Pakistani tribesman hoping not to get drone bombed, hangs in the balance.

Photo credit: Thierry Ehrmann

China’s Next

china

It’s coming. China’s time of troubles is right around the corner.

We’ve heard for years about how the populous hybrid of communism and capitalism is on a triumphant victory march. We’ve been told countless times that its rigid national discipline, newfound business acumen, and large size will lead it to global dominance. We’re all too familiar with the scenario of America crumbling into ashes while China rises like a phoenix in all its firey glory.

That’s not going to be the case. The People’s Republic is coming up on hard times.

I previously wrote about today’s restless and futureless youth from a more American perspective. It’s not, however, a uniquely American problem. It’s a problem caused by the old world, the old system of human society. The Chinese are just now coming to more or less accept this predominantly Western model, thinking it to be the key to a glorious future. They would be right had they come to the game a couple of decades sooner.

But now that model is outdated and unsuitable to the new world. And the cracks are showing, with China’s youth experiencing diminishing prospects of securing employment. That’s never a good sign, nor is it an isolated incident. More bad news is on its way.

Expect a full report on China’s looming struggles soon. Until then, suffice it to say that you’re in for quite a show. Sit back and relax, and enjoy the view from faraway shores.

Society is Slavery

crowd

People are willing to rationalize any aggression, any harm, any injustice visited on a fellow human being. All in the name of society.

This sad realization hit me with an inescapable ferocity today when I read of France’s first gay wedding. Not that it took place. Not that it took so long. Not even that so many people objected morally to their union. No, the tragic part was that hundreds of police officers were mobilized in order to ensure the safety of the event, for fear that people whose lives had absolutely not been affected by these two would seek to do them harm.

All in the name of society.

What our neighbor does, so long as it doesn’t affect us directly, is none of our concern. At some level, nearly all humans alive recognize and agree with this basic point. But then something magic happens. Enough individuals congregate in a specific place, and they cease to be individuals. They become part of the environment. They become society. Now, a resident of a neighborhood, of a province, of a country, becomes territorial, and in doing so claims at least partial ownership of the environment. Of the society of said land, which is composed of other residents. Of people. In this way, trying to control society is essentially the same thing as slavery.

Now that I’ve made that point I feel I should back up and clarify. Seeking to influence society isn’t the same thing as slavery. In fact, I would encourage any moral person to attempt to influence society for the betterment of all. Influence, notice. Not control. When we talk about society we’re talking about hundreds, thousands, millions of individuals, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to convince them to voluntarily alter their behavior for their, or even our, benefit. Seeking to control them, however, is what’s sinister. Using force to make decisions for other people is a direct denial of their rights as individuals. If they lose their rights as individuals, and must live their lives according to the will of someone else, they have become, essentially, slaves.

It’s dangerous to give anyone the right to control society by force. Even something seemingly innocuous such as establishing the official language of a country, regulating intoxicating substances, or defining marriage crosses a deadly line. By establishing that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, we establish that the rights of individuals are subject to the needs of the collective. We are all individuals. We all lose our rights. We all become slaves. Not to one another, mind you. To whoever can successfully define what a society needs. Upon securing control over the definition of what society needs, that person or group has successfully enslaved the people.

All in the name of society.

Photo credit: Cornell University

Cancerville, D.C.

k street dc

Washington, D.C. is booming. And that’s a problem.

America is still sick. Its economy, and indeed that of the world, struggles on in a sorry state of disrepair. The much-awaited recovery is finally here, and it’s nothing to get excited about. Frustrated millenials have even taken to cracking jokes about how easy it was for their parents’ generation to secure a stable financial future. The whole country is still feeling the pain.

Except for Washington. For the District of Columbia, things are going just fine.

Stroll the streets of the nation’s capital city and you will be greeted by the busy clamor of construction. Visit its bars and restaurants and you will find them packed and thriving. Wherever you go, you will be hit by an undeniable reality: things are going great here. Make no mistake, in the midst of a miserable economy Washington, D.C. is a boom town. And there’s something deeply wrong with that.

Washington isn’t a large city. Even the greater D.C. metro area is only the 7th largest in the country, hardly making it the national commercial epicenter. The title it can claim, however, is that of the national seat of government. And that’s the source of its growth. As the government expands and employs more people, so do services and business that directly feed off of a ballooning public sector. This can be anything from housing, restaurants, and other services that cater to employees residing in the D.C. area, to more sinister elements such as lobbying and consulting.

The problem with Washington, D.C.’s boom is this: all its success comes at the expense of the rest of the country. Every dollar the government spends comes out of the pocket of some private citizen or business. D.C. growing while the rest of the country stagnates isn’t a coincidence. The two trends are correlated. The economy languishes because of the increasing burden of the unproductive sector, i.e. the government. We will never have the recovery we long for as long as this direction continues.

When the cancer grows, the host must weaken. As America continues to suffer under the crushing weight of a perpetually-ailed economy, Washington, its parasitic overlord, only becomes stronger. It’s time to cut out the cancer.

Coercive Compassion

taxation

Some would legislate compassion. Some would use the government to achieve charitable ends. Some would attempt to do good through the heavy hand of state authority. They believe that society can benefit the most through using coercive means, rather than by voluntary action.

They are wrong. Those who would use the brute force of the government to achieve their sense of morality are acting neither effectively nor morally.

In his article for The Freeman titled The Clenched Fist and the General Welfare, Gary Galles nicely dispels the fallacy that coercive action is efficient in promoting the general welfare of society. Galles equates government action to a clenched fist, a blunt tool effective at crushing and destroying, but not much else. This ability can be useful in areas such as preventing and punishing violence, theft, fraud, and other forms of aggression and harm, but would prove significantly less than ideal when applied to a role such as charity and economic stability. According to Galles, such a tool may benefit society only so long as it is relegated to functions which take full advantage of its destructive nature. Otherwise, if inappropriately used for other ends, the governmental fist causes more harm than good.

Using force and coercion for society’s benefit is, indeed, inefficient, as Galles noted. However, using violent, non-voluntary means to achieve compassionate ends is more than inefficient. It is blatantly immoral.

Before going any further, we must acknowledge one simple, ugly fact: every law is supported by a death threat. Even the most basic, seemingly innocuous piece of legislation meant to benefit the poor, if resisted, carries with it a potential termination order. In order to pay Paul, Peter must be taxed. If Peter refuses to pay, he is fined, and his assets may be confiscated. If he refuses to surrender his assets, agents are sent to procure them by force. If he resists, he may be imprisoned. If he resists imprisonment, he will be met with physical violence, and if he manages to maintain his resistance he will surely die.

This harsh reality of using coercive methods can only mean that government action is inherently immoral when used for any purpose other than preventing violence. If using the law for an aim means a willingness to kill to achieve said aim, the threat presented must be greater than or equal to killing; otherwise, such an action is immoral, even murderous. Therefore, while analyzing the inherent clumsiness and inefficiency of government action is a noble and important effort, it falls short. We must come to terms with the moral reality of the situation as well. We must face the truth that using murder and death to achieve goals of mere societal welfare is evil.

Using coercion to enact compassionate measures is more than inefficient. It is a contradiction in terms. It is nothing short of brutality. We would do well to keep this in mind before using government force to achieve societal goals, lest the blood of innocents stain our hands.

Photo credit: Riley Kaminer