My Lyme Journal: Volume 9

It has been over a year since I've blogged about my experience with lyme disease. I wish I could say that this was for positive reasons, but the truth is that I've been frustrated and haven't wanted to spend any more energy thinking about it than I had to.

A little over a year ago I found out babesiosis had finally been killed. It was a time when the disease was at its last stage -- attacking my heart -- and all I could do was hope that my 23-year-old heart could continue to hold up. There would be times when I'd get that squeezing pain in my chest with a sharp intensity that would radiate out, the shortness of breath, the cold sweat, and the light-headedness, and I'd beg my body to not give out on me. It became routine that I'd let out a desperate plea asking to not lose consciousness because i this was the end, I didn't want to test and see if my unconsciousness had as much fight to survive. There were times when I was just absolutely terrified of what might happen. There was a time when I used to sleep just to have a short reprieve from the pain, but I'd keep myself awake as long as I could because I was too fearful that something would happen in my sleep.

So when babesiosis was finally killed at the end of spring, I felt like a whole new person. Instead of feeling like I was on death's doorstep living one day at a time, I had hope for the future. The idea of returning to school and finishing my degree was no longer a dream outside my grasp. Even though lyme disease was still there, I felt like my triumph over it was within reach.

A few months after that, I had moved out of my parents' house and was back at Oregon State to finish my degree. It started off so good. I was functioning at a level I hadn't been at in years and felt relatively normal for the first time in years. It used to be that I'd have to abide very closely to spoon theory just to do anything each day, but I could go out with friends without feeling like something would compromise my spoon levels for the rest of the week. I was dutifully taking my medications and keeping myself healthy, but I wasn't thinking much about being sick. I avoided the lyme communities online to break from hearing about the deaths of others and the sadness of desperate people trying out the new pseudo-scientific cure in attempt to put their hope in something. But I had hope that he would prescribe something that would cure in me in a few rounds. He was hopeful and I was ready to see that finish line. Everything just felt like it was getting better.

But then it was like I hit a wall during winter term. Some of old symptoms were returning and I felt like there was nothing I could do to slow it down. It turned out that for six months my antibiotics were doing nothing to stop the lyme from spreading. I went from having a relatively good number of t-cells for a sick person to one that so dangerously low that I had to worry about catching an opportunistic infection. And I was on a campus with 25,000 people! At this point, my doctor switched my medication to something that was supposed to be very effective at beating back the lyme, but it ended up having a decent defense with no offense. But at least it was keeping it mostly at bay. Despite this, I was feeling progressive worse.

A few weeks ago, my latest test results came back showing that my t-cell count was up by 10, but the lyme was noticeably worsened and overall everything else was worse. As hard as it was to hear, I saw it coming. The last half of spring term was absolutely brutal and I didn't even seem to feel any better after graduation when I made time for a few weeks of pure relaxation. I was beginning to feel totally helpless about the situation. I've been so careful about taking my medications at the right times, taking a variety of supplements, eating healthy, sleeping, and reducing stress -- which can be really hard to manage as a busy college student -- but I was trying so hard to make sure I brought something to the fight. I felt like I was doing my best to do the right things, but it just isn't enough. This disease is too powerful and my body is too overrun. I'm tired. And frustrated. And a bit angry. I'm coming up on the three year anniversary of treatment and I can't help but wonder how much longer it will take. I want my life back, and right now I feel like I'm light years away.

I picked up my old basketball today and it was as if that tactile sensation unleashed this rush of intense emotion and memories that had been previously locked away. I remember the countless hours I used to spend shooting at the hoop in by driveway. Rain or shine, I was out there every night perfecting my shot and running myself into exhaustion. At a time when my home and school life wasn't where I wanted them to be, there was something very therapeutic about being on a basketball court and working out the issues in my game. I remember my freshman year of high school when I was first basketball player on the court and the last to leave. And that often meant staying for a second practice as I would workout with the varsity coach and fill in on scrimmages. For years of my adolescence, everything was measured as a countdown until I could go to practice or go to a game; this was all that I lived for. I remember a teammate and I comparing bruises at the end the week like they were war wounds representing who fought the hardest. I remember the open appointments my doctor always had for me for x-rays and other tests since I never believed I was giving enough unless I was diving on the floor after loose balls, taking charges, or flying through the lane to get to foul line. I remember that intense high that came in a game where I'd feel absolutely invincible. Everything would get quiet -- no noisy fans, no fears or nervousness -- and I felt this burst of power coming out of me. I wouldn't even have to touch the ball before knowing that this play was mine and I was about to do something amazing. I remember the classmates and strangers who would come up after a game to tell me how inspiring it was to see someone like me playing so well.

And I remember being the varsity soccer player who was supposed to take the team to a new level. I was supposed to ride that expected success into the college game. But of course, that never came. So many people seemed so hopeful for me, but I never got to be the player I was supposed to be. My greatest skill and my greatest joy in the world was taken from me by lyme disease, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis. As I was sitting there running my hand across the basketball, I remember the emotional toll of losing all that -- and that left the normally strong and stoic person in me break down and cry for hours.

And now I'm a 24-year-old writing a blog at 4am because I pushed it too hard on Wii Tennis and am in too much pain to sleep. Is this really what has become of my life? I can't help but think of what the 15-year-old me would think if she could see me now. Nine years ago I was spending seemingly every waking moment practicing a sport or working out in some way. And now, my muscles have atrophied and I barely have the strength to go for 10 minutes on an elliptical machine. The 15-year-old me would have rather died than to live like I do now. Sometimes it feels like the ultimate cruelty to take a person who lived such an active lifestyle and put them in a body like this. It feels like a prison that I desperately want to break out of. To some degree, I think I needed to let a part of me die in order to go on. The me that I was couldn't bear to live like this, so I had to let her go and grow again. I still feel her sometimes, but she feels like a past life at this point.

This disease has taken a toll on me. It has robbed me of so much and I don't know what I can get back. I still wake up every day in overwhelming pain all the while knowing that it won't get any better, so I better pull myself together if I want to make it through the day. Sometimes I feel like I'd be less exhausted if I didn't have to work so hard to zone out and distract my mind enough to keep me from crying all day. But I'm sure that effort is helping to maintain my sanity.

There are times when I wish I could wake up and realize that this whole experience was just a nightmare. I'm just so ready for this to be done. I want this disease out of me. NOW. I want to be able to go to graduate school and not have to worry about how the disease will affect my ability to succeed. I want to be able to wake up and not feel like every part of my body has beaten with a heavy object. I want to be able to able to hang out with friends and not get exhausted or hurt doing the most mundane of things. I want a life without chronic pain. I just want to deal with normal 24-year-old things. So I asked my doctor to put me on toughest treatment he could. I'm ready to kick this thing and am willing take some additional short term pain if that's what it will cost to get it done. I desperately want to see a glimpse of that finish line and I really hope this latest round of treatment will move me closer to that point.

Mass Incarceration, the War on Drugs, and the Prison Industrial Complex

References and further information are here. It might have been even more interesting to expand upon the incarceration of non-violent offenders, particularly non-violent drug offenders. According to a 2010 study by the Center for Economic Policy Research: 

"Non-violent offenders make up over 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Non-violent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all offenders behind bars, up from less than 10 percent in 1980."

As demonstrated by the ACLU infographic, people of color are over-represented throughout the prison system, particularly when it comes to drug law violations. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, "[a]lthough rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for drug law violations than are whites."A 2011 report by the organization noted that:

"Mass arrests and incarceration of people of color – largely due to drug law violations – have hobbled families and communities by stigmatizing and removing substantial numbers of men and women. In the late 1990s, nearly one in three African-American men aged 20-29 were under criminal justice supervision, while more than two out of five had been incarcerated – substantially more than had been incarcerated a decade earlier and orders of magnitudes higher than that for the general population. Today, 1 in 15 African-American children and 1 in 42 Latino children have a parent in prison, compared to 1 in 111 white children. In some areas, a large majority of African-American men – 55 percent in Chicago, for example – are labeled felons for life, and, as a result, may be prevented from voting and accessing public housing, student loans and other public assistance."

A common defense of our disastrous prison system is that it is safer for our communities to lock up those who are a threat to others -- but non-violent drug users are more of a threat to themselves than anyone else. Here's a radical thought: We should treat drug use as a health problem and not a criminal problem. I'd much rather see a portion of my tax dollars go to free or low-cost drug treatment facilities available to all and for community-based programs designed to tackle the reasons why individuals abuse drugs or engage in different kinds of criminal activities.

Whether society is ready to hear it or not, it is a waste of our tax dollars to continue to pour money into this bloated and ineffective industry. In reality, prisons are less about keeping citizens safe and more about the impact of the growing influence of privately-owned prisons and corporations using inmates as slave laborers in a system coined the prison-industrial complex. As Angela Davis describes:

"Prisons thus perform a feat of magic. Or rather the people who continually vote in new prison bonds and tacitly assent to a proliferating network of prisons and jails have been tricked into believing in the magic of imprisonment. But prisons do not disappear problems, they disappear human beings. And the practice of disappearing vast numbers of people from poor, immigrant, and racially marginalized communities has literally become big business.
The seeming effortlessness of magic always conceals an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes work. When prisons disappear human beings in order to convey the illusion of solving social problems, penal infrastructures must be created to accommodate a rapidly swelling population of caged people. Goods and services must be provided to keep imprisoned populations alive. Sometimes these populations must be kept busy and at other times — particularly in repressive super-maximum prisons and in INS detention centers — they must be deprived of virtually all meaningful activity. Vast numbers of handcuffed and shackled people are moved across state borders as they are transferred from one state or federal prison to another.

 All this work, which used to be the primary province of government, is now also performed by private corporations, whose links to government in the field of what is euphemistically called “corrections” resonate dangerously with the military industrial complex. The dividends that accrue from investment in the punishment industry, like those that accrue from investment in weapons production, only amount to social destruction. Taking into account the structural similarities and profitability of business-government linkages in the realms of military production and public punishment, the expanding penal system can now be characterized as a 'prison industrial complex.'

... "Many corporations whose products we consume on a daily basis have learned that prison labor power can be as profitable as third world labor power exploited by U.S.-based global corporations. Both relegate formerly unionized workers to joblessness and many even wind up in prison. Some of the companies that use prison labor are IBM, Motorola, Compaq, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Boeing. But it is not only the hi-tech industries that reap the profits of prison labor. Nordstrom department stores sell jeans that are marketed as “Prison Blues,” as well as t-shirts and jackets made in Oregon prisons. The advertising slogan for these clothes is “made on the inside to be worn on the outside.” Maryland prisoners inspect glass bottles and jars used by Revlon and Pierre Cardin, and schools throughout the world buy graduation caps and gowns made by South Carolina prisoners. 

'For private business,' write Eve Goldberg and Linda Evans (a political prisoner inside the Federal Correctional Institution at Dublin, California) 'prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No union organizing. No health benefits, unemployment insurance, or workers’ compensation to pay. No language barriers, as in foreign countries. New leviathan prisons are being built on thousands of eerie acres of factories inside the walls. Prisoners do data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, waterbeds, and lingerie for Victoria’s Secret — all at a fraction of the cost of ‘free labor.’"

Our prison system is in serious need of reform, but it seems we are far from recognizing it. How many more of our neighbors have to be locked up before we realize it isn't working as intended?

The Phoenix Mercury's Male Practice Squad

OK, I've officially been awakened from my blogging coma. With the GOP's legislative assault on women, the Wisconsin union-busting law, the inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, and countless other stories that have come out recently, I've been on outrage-overload barely able to muster snarky or WTF comments on facebook links. But I read something today that made me so angry that I can't finish my homework until I write out my feelings.

I've always been a fan of the WNBA. I followed the Portland Fire for the short time they existed and transitioned my team loyalty to the Seattle Storm soon after. But I've long enjoyed seeing Diana Taurasi play since the days she dominated the college game at UConn and I've followed her WNBA career after she was drafted by Phoenix in 2004. And by the time Phoenix moved to the Paul Westhead-style in which she flourished, I had found my new favorite team. Since then, they've won three conference championships and two WNBA championships, several All-Star selections, including Diana Taurasi, Candice Dupree and Penny Taylor last year while Taurasi won both the league MVP and finals MVP in 2009.

What ignited my outrage was a link posted on the Mercury Facebook fan page which stated: "Join the Mercury Male Practice Squad." I was already a bit irked by it but decided to withhold judgement until further review, but I was fuming when I followed the link to the online form to tryout. This is all they ask: Name, age, home phone, email address, t-shirt size, best time to tryout, and if they've ever been to a Mercury game. There was no question asking whether applicants have ever played at the college or professional level and not even a mention of desiring someone with some kind of basketball experience.

Seriously, WTF?! It's no secret that women's professional sports have struggled to attract a male audience, particularly in sports many deem to be too-masculine for women to be truly competitive in. There's a reason why the WNBA requires players to wear makeup when they don't play, why players pose for Playboy* [intentionally not linking], and why there's such a thing as a lingerie football league [wikipedia]. In these kinds of sports, the mainstream notion is that women will never be able to play at the level of men because their genetics preclude them from reaching the same level. This is bullshit and we shouldn't continue perpetuating it. While it may certainly be true that the best NBA players could beat the best WNBA players (size differences themselves would make matchups difficult), it doesn't mean that men overall are better. This is often the same confusion with IQ scores that claim men are smarter than women because there are a higher number of men at the top. Taken from the opposite angle, one could say men have less intelligence because the have higher numbers on the other end. WNBA players are better than the majority of men -- and that should not be a controversial statement.

This reminds me of a misogynist prick back in high school who couldn't bear to watch women's sports at any level because he believed he could beat any one of them. He also happened to be a JV benchwarmer with a laughably-bad jump shot. I don't care how genetically superior you think your XY genes are, their presence alone isn't enough to best the hard work and skill of those with XX genes.

Anyway, the point of this lead-up is that this open tryout for a male practice squads reeks of the men-are-always-better-at-sports stereotype. It sends the creepy message that what it will take for this team to get back to another WNBA championship (they won in 2007 and 2009) is to be challenged by men. I wouldn't be offended if, for example, 7'2" Margo Dydek came back to the WNBA and started tearing up the league and teams needed 7 foot tall ex-college and professional players to practice against.

Besides, a man would have to have some solid college or professional experience to provide worthy competition for someone like Taurasi. Let's be honest here: She's undoubtedly one of the greatest women's college basketball players ever -- if not the best -- and is one of the most dominant players in the WNBA. Her size, athleticism, and ability to shoot the ball are extraordinary -- I dare say that she could hold her own against some NBA players. She also has some great teammates as well. Penny Taylor, for example, is a fascinating player to watch because she is incredibly well-rounded and has such a high basketball IQ. She knows how to tear apart defenses and has an uncanny ability score points any way she can get them. She's fearless and relentless, and her ability to maintain composure in tough situations reflects her long history on the Australian Olympic team and time in the EuroLeague and WNBA. The Mercury coaching staff might have to look further than an open tryout to find worthy competitors.

Now I don't mean to say that practice squads with men are terrible and have no place in women's basketball, but I think they have to marketed and employed much differently to avoid playing into harmful and dead-wrong stereotypes about women. For instance, the Seattle Storm employ a male practice squad mainly for athletic bodies to scrimmage against (the WNBA recently cut squads to 11 players) who aren't there to teach, but for fair competition. Unlike the Mercury and other teams like the Los Angeles Sparks and the New York Liberty, the Storm set themselves apart because they don't hold open tryouts. Their players are chosen after recommendations from select people and all of them have experience at the highest levels.

For the Mercury to host open tryouts -- and worse, without even recommending that potential players have college and professional experience -- they are playing into the sexist and incredibly offensive notion that men are always better than women and that these incredibly talented professional athletes could learn something from playing with men. Google "Phoenix Mercury male practice squad" and take a gander at the rank misogyny that permeates the pages. KB at JockPost [I'd rather not actually link to it] has this to say about the male practice squad: 

"What happens if the girls play these 15 guys and get smoked every practice? That is sure-fire way to boost the confidence of a team that was successful last season. [/sarcasm]... How many guys want to go play ball and get run off the floor by a bunch of women?  The potential for humiliation is unparalleled.  Un-f**king-paralleled. I think I would rather take a swift kick in the nuts every night. On a good note, attendance should go up by 10-15 people since all the men get free tickets." 

As he believes there are two scenarios: the "girls," women, could get run off the court by men with more athletic prowess, thus reducing their confidence throughout the season or the men could risk humiliation by being beaten by women at a sport. The author also points out that he would rather risk daily impaling of his testicles than deal with the humiliation/shame of losing to a woman who is a professional basketball player. Here's a sign that masculinity is in crisis. Todd Dewey at the Las Vegas-Review Journal also let out his seething sexism: "We were set to try out until we realized we'd have to watch a Mercury game if selected." A Celtics NBA forum noted that it was "a great idea" for women to play men and that they will "prbably [sic] become the best team in the league pretty soon." For a team that won it all in 2009 and lost the conference finals to the league-best Storm, their chances to win it all *totally* depend on a male practice squad to get them to that next level. Riiight. Later it was stated that the "Mercury will be investing heavily in long-haired wigs..." because surely they can't succeed without men on the team carrying them. What a steaming pile of bullshit written by someone who has probably never watched a game.

To the Mercury marketing people (not that they'd ever actually stumble upon my little blog), I recommend changing the press release to something like this:

Join the Mercury Practice Squad

Have you played college or professional level basketball? If so, want to play competitively against some of the best players in the world? Coach Gaines is recruiting for a practice squad that will scrimmage against the Mercury throughout the upcoming season. We're looking for players of either sex, particularly taller players (6'4+) who are already in basketball shape. Please send resumes and a skills tape and we'll invite the best candidates to come in for a tryout. 

It's depressing to me that the WNBA struggles to stay afloat and the talented players in the league don't receive the respect they should. The WNBA can't fix the misogynist culture we function under that would rather see women as sex objects than human beings judged by something other than looks, but these practice squads required a more careful PR because their not-so-explained existence helps fuel sexist drivel.





*Just to expand upon this a bit more, I'm not saying that it is always wrong for women to pose nude. Nude photos can be beautiful and artistic, and its something I have no interest in wanting to stop someone from participating in. The difficulty is that I remember the discussions, especially back when I was in high school (I graduated in 2005), about whether WNBA players appearing nude would bring much-needed male attention -- and subsequently, legitimacy -- to the struggling league. There's the debate about whether the league should just be happy men are drawn in no matter what the reason, but this debate leaves out a crucial component: in a patriarchal culture in which women can be reduced to sex objects instead of full-fledged human beings, the focus on selling attractive players and the closeting of lesbians to draw in (heterosexual) male viewers obscures the fact that this is an athletic competition. I would much rather see players marketed by showcasing their superior talent -- their basketball skills -- not their looks.  

Quick Note: I've left the Daily Barometer

After several weeks of being frustrated by the sloppy editing of my columns, I've left the Daily Barometer. The editor-in-chief decided he'd rather lose me than address the problems that continued to reflect poorly on the paper.

It's so depressing to be done with it all. I've truly enjoyed my time there and I know I've grown immensely as a writer because of it. I'll miss all the responses -- both positive and negative -- from fellow students, faculty, and the greater community which helped me better formulate my arguments and inspire me to keep going. But it got to the point where I'd feel embarrassed every week over what errors the copy editors would slip in. Sometimes they were dumb errors as if I'd forgotten to check for typos, while others compromised the integrity of my pieces. As much as I enjoyed the big audience, I just couldn't allow to continue to let my credibility be damaged.

Now this means I'll have more time for this poorly-neglected blog. With schoolwork, applying to graduate school, volunteering, clubs, and continuing the not-so-fun lyme disease treatment, I've trading blogging for sleep and a bit of relaxation (not that I've gotten much of either). But I'm making an effort to write more (I do enjoy it) and to make sure that snarky one-liners of micro-blogging on twitter and facebook won't be my only contribution to the internet. And hopefully I'll have the opportunity to write a few other places in the future.

-- Sara

Is polygamy a crime when dealing with consenting adults?

Over winter break, I caught up with TLC's newest hit reality show, “Sister Wives,” which follows the lives of a fundamentalist Mormon polygynist family living in Utah consisting of patriarch, Kody Brown, his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn, and their 16 children.

To get around bigamy laws, Kody is only legally married to Meri, while the other three wives took part in a commitment ceremony with Kody that presumably coincided with some sort of contract. Despite this, the Brown family was under investigation by the Lehi police in September and the case has since been turned over to Utah County Attorney, Jeff Buhman, who noted that it could take months to decide whether or not to prosecute.

According to Utah state penal code 76-7-101, “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Bigamy is considered a third degree felony that can result in a five year prison sentence if convicted.

While I understand the legal reasons for differentiating between relationships and common law marriages (for example, a common law partner can seek spousal support), I was upset that the investigation could lead to the prosecution of freely consenting adults. All five were over the age of 18 and each consented to enter into this kind of relationship. With so many larger issues affecting society, why should the State care about what happens between consenting adults? By maintaining the ban on polygamous marriage, we are continuing to force these families to be closeted and to leave non-legally married spouses without important rights and protections that come with marriage.

I often hear that bigamy should remain a prosecutable offense because, in the case of fundamentalist Mormons, women have been brainwashed to believe this type of relationship will exalt them into the highest celestial kingdom in the Mormon presupposition of the afterlife. There are members of my family who would shun the idea of the Browns' marriage while believing that their marriages tie them to their partner for eternity in the Christian heaven. And if they practice complementarianism, the belief that men and women have different roles which include the subservience of wives to their husbands and other males, they will be fulfilling God's requirement of them and be rewarded in the afterlife.

As an egalitarian-minded person, both of these models aren't appealing to me. I wouldn't want to share my husband or wife if I didn't get to have other sexual partners as well. I also wouldn't want to enter into a marriage where I would be infantilized by abdicating all decision-making to my husband. In fact, I'm rather disgusted by that prospect even though I know some of my cousins aspire to have that kind of relationship. If fundamentalist Mormon polygynist marriage or fundamentalist Protestant marriage were my only two options, I'd abstain. I may not like either one of these, but I acknowledge that there are different kinds of relationships that work for different kinds of people and that consenting adults should be free to choose the relationship that works best for them. I may slip a cousin a book on feminism and model an alternative type of relationship, but I wouldn't actively protest to illegalize their marriages.

Lately, I hear so much about the need to protect “traditional marriage” from gay and lesbian couples seeking the rights, responsibilities and the status that come with marriage, but many overlook just how diverse the institution of marriage already is. For the majority of states, a marriage license can be given to any male and female couple over the age of 18. This marriage license acts as a contract between the couple and the State which grants 1,138 rights and responsibilities.

People may bring different religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and cultural values to this institution, but the point is that by law, all are treated the same. There are marriages between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Scientologists, non-believers and countless others that may share religious, ethnic and/or cultural backgrounds. While some married people may believe that divorce isn't allowed due to their specific religious beliefs, by law they are entitled to it because the State doesn't issue separate marriage licenses for different religious or cultural groups or uphold particular rules for each. There are members of my family who believe that divorce isn't allowable for any reason, but by law, they are entitled to one because the State doesn't have a fundamentalist Christian marriage contract to uphold. While we may think of marriage as a religiously-bound institution, there is no requirement to profess a certain kind of faith nor does the State enforce any kind of religious rules about marriage.

People marry for myriad reasons and consequently, marriages can look quite diverse. While some may pledge fidelity and solely practice monogamy, others may enter into open or polyamorous marriages. If we maintain and enforce bigamy laws on all couples (not just fundamentalist Mormons) do we really want to say that the State will sanction extra-marital affairs so long as they don't take place in one particular home for an extended period of time? With underfunded police forces and actual crime happening, it would seem outrageous to investigate people believed to cohabitate too soon with another during a separation. With such high numbers of infidelity in supposedly monogamous relationships and increased awareness of open and polyamorous couples, can we really sustain the belief that is only criminally wrong if a person makes a long-term commitment to more than one person? There have previously been sodomy laws and even adultery laws used to prosecute the behavior of consenting adults, but over time we've matured to see these as personal matters and not matters for the State to intervene on. So why can't we extend that to all sexual minorities?

Marriage is a diverse, ever-changing institution. Throughout human history, polygyny has been the most practiced form of marriage, even largely popular in biblical times (sorry, Christians). But there has also been polyandry, gay and lesbian marriages, group marriages, and numerous societies with open and polyamorous marriages. To believe that a monogamous one man, one woman “traditional marriage” has been the predominate form throughout human history is to believe a fictionalized account. It would be unreasonable and ahistorical to believe that this institution cannot withstand allowing gay and lesbian couples or polygamous partners to enter in. Human history has shown that the institution is malleable and can sustain itself even with all the diversity expressed in it over time. Allowing all unions of consenting adults to marry would ensure that all are afforded the same treatment and protection under the law that is already afforded to married straight couples. And it's not like these relationships don't exist already, they just often exist without the legal protection of marriage.

Allowing polygamous partners to marry may be more complicated to establish than gay and lesbian marriages as it would require certain rights and responsibilities to be split (for example, perhaps a primary wife would be the only one given permission to make medical decisions for the husband in a polygynist marriage). However, allowing polygamist marriages would make the relationship more equitable for those who aren't the first wife or husband with legal marriage rights. While divorce may be unlikely for fundamentalist Mormon marriages like the one depicted on “Sister Wives,” and it also may also be equally unlikely that the patriarch would deny financial support to an ex-wife to avoid unwanted attention on the family, a legal polygamous marriage would guarantee equal treatment for everyone involved through the duration of the relationship and in the event that it ends.

Until then, the State should stop playing morality police. Utah and other states should leave alone what consenting adults choose to do and focus their time and money on more important issues. There are an estimated 38,000 fundamentalist Mormon polygynist marriages currently in Utah today, many who are closeted and live in fear of being outed. We don't have to necessarily like these kinds of relationships or choose to enter into one ourselves, but we should let them live freely.  

Column: DC climate change ruckus

DC climate change ruckus

By: Sara Gwin

Posted: 12/1/10

Earlier this month, Rep. John Shimkus submitted a letter to his Republican colleagues asking for their blessing to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee for which he is "uniquely qualified" on account of being on the committee since 1997, and because of his more recent subcommittee leadership.

I'd like to believe that he didn't attach the video of his speech at the House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on March 25, 2009, as an example of what his leadership might look like, but with the Republican party increasingly polluted by anti-intellectual fervor and authority worship, perhaps that will be the difference between denying the current chair, recent BP-apologist Rep. Joe Barton, a waiver to run again and to kick out another contender, Rep. Fred Upton, who is widely considered to not be conservative enough.

In the video from a committee meeting addressing climate change and possible legislation to mitigate it, Shimkus pulled out his Bible and read from Genesis 8: 21-22, where God gave Noah a promise:

"Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease."

"I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation," Shimkus said. He went on to read from Matthew 24: 31 where it is announced that God will take all the believers up to heaven with him before he destroys the Earth in seven years of tribulation: "And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other."

"The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood," Shimkus asserted. "I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."

In an interview with Politico's Darren Samuelsohn on Nov. 10, Shimkus reiterated that his belief that government shouldn't address rising greenhouse gas emissions is formed by what he has read in the Bible. "I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," Shimkus said. "And I do believe that God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood. Now, do I believe in climate change? In my trip to Greenland, the answer is yes. The climate is changing. The question is more about the costs and benefits and trying to spend taxpayer dollars on something that you cannot stop versus the changes that have been occurring forever. That's the real debate."

He admits that climate change is real, but doesn't believe that we should do anything to address it because the deity he worships and the book supposedly influenced by its divine hand didn't address climate change or the possibility of humans destroying the earth before the Apocalypse.

I'm glad Shimkus can sleep at night with his belief that his friends and family won't have to deal with the disastrous effects of climate change, but I don't find comfort in his deity or it's "infallible word" from a book with no original documents and thousands upon thousands of known errors. Shimkus may not have been laughed out of that subcommittee hearing because he happens to believe in the same deity as the majority of Americans, but how might this situation have been different if he replaced his Christian God with Poseidon, Xenu, Krishna or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why is Shimkus' belief in God given time along with that of scientists and other researchers in regard to climate change? There is no evidence for a supernatural being, let alone one who controls the weather and who would start Armageddon before we pillage our world into nothingness. This argument has no merit and hinders progress when it coincides with actual adult discussion consisting of reason and facts that can be tested, corroborated, or refuted.

There is a point where we have to acknowledge that not every opinion is equally valid. I'm open to debate about the best ways to combat climate change and how big of a role the government should have in regulating industry to achieve some of those goals, but if we are to allow someone to say that we should put no effort into fighting climate change, I'm going to need better evidence than particular lines from religious texts from the Bronze Age. We do need a diversity of studies from researchers of various backgrounds to formulate comprehensive legislation, but we don't need to bring in the supernatural to stop discussion.

People certainly have every right to believe in and find comfort in whatever supernatural force they wish, but there is a difference between the choices Shimkus makes at home and the choices he makes at work. As the potential head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Shimkus has incredible power to shape climate change legislation, or lack thereof, in his tenure. Many environmentalists believe that the Republican takeover of the House means that any hope for addressing climate change would be discarded and left for Democrats to take up in the future, if they could ever get a big enough majority to tackle it again. I don't know if the growing number of Republican Congressmen who partake in climate change denialism do so with sincerity or because of enough financial backing from the coal, oil and gas industry lobby to buy off their beliefs. Perhaps it is an attempt to appeal to the ignorant masses who put more faith in authority figures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, whose opinions seem to carry more weight than the vast majority of scientists who have credibility on the subject.

The problem with this growing climate change denialism is that we don't have the luxury of time to continue fighting about whether or not it is real. The evidence for it is overwhelming and we are reaching points in time where we may not be able to undo damage that has been done. While Shimkus' and his fellow Republicans' denialism may benefit them politically, it doesn't benefit the American people and the people across the world who will pay for the inaction. This is a serious situation where the consequences are increasingly dire. We can't just hope that the supernatural will save us in the end.

Sara Gwin is a senior in psychology and women studies. The opinions expressed in her columns do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Gwin can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.

---

© Copyright 2010 The Daily Barometer

Veganism Column

Why beef shouldn't have to be 'what's for dinner'

By: Sara Gwin

Posted: 11/16/10

Last weekend, I went to the Beavers game with a friend who also brought me out tailgating with her family. Because it was an early game, omelets stuffed with meat and cheese were being offered to me right and left, and I had to politely refuse multiple times. As we were leaving for the game after being wooed again with a parting omelet, my friend asked me, "Why didn't you just say you were vegan?" I responded, "People tend to get defensive and angry when I bring that up." She laughed and couldn't believe I'd worry about such a thing.

She has a point. After all, I'm the kind of person who wears a "This is what a feminist looks like" T-shirt because I love the reactions I get. Depending on who I meet, it should really say "Why yes, I'd love to engage in a conversation about feminism with you" or "Please scream obscenities at me and blame me for every ill of society." Whether I admit that I'm a feminist, atheist, democratic socialist, a somewhat stereotypical hippie with aspirations to live "off the grid" and grow my own food or even state my preference for Ubuntu's operating system over Windows, I know I'm bound to offend or upset someone who doesn't like one of the beliefs or positions that I hold because it subverts the dominant paradigm. I'm used to animosity, rude comments and threats of violence and have become quite adept at staying calm in stressful situations. I'm also used to having debates and discussions, and passing along facts and further references on a number of things I'm already pretty outspoken about, so why do I clam up during an opportunity to just say I don't eat animals?

Part of it may be how new this all is for me. Up until a year and a half ago, I was the typical meat-eating American, keeping myself ignorant of what it took to get that slab of meat on my plate. I knew the animals weren't raised how the pictures on the packages or in the advertisements suggested, but I didn't allow myself to think about what was really happening. I knew that animals weren't raised on small farms like my grandfather's with the freedom to roam and make friends with fellow farm animals and humans alike, but I just couldn't allow myself to think about how most farm animals truly lived. I let myself believe that the meat industry wasn't as bad as my vegetarian and vegan friends believed, and I continued to do mental backflips to avoid justifying my eating habits with my beliefs about animal welfare and preservation of the environment.

I finally reached a point where I realized I really couldn't remain willfully ignorant anymore. I got over my sexist reservations about the work of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) long enough to peruse their website for information and videos about the lives of animals on factory farms, also known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, where 99 percent of the meat we eat comes from, as well as their experiences in slaughterhouses. I may have been a lifelong meat eater up until that point, but it only took a few videos to make me lose my craving for it entirely.

The industry standards for chickens and turkeys allow them to be housed by the tens of thousands in dark sheds, wading in their own excrement with hardly enough room to turn around. They've been selectively bred to grow so large and so fast that many become crippled when their legs break under their own massive weight. Hens raised for egg production are crammed into cages so small that they have no ability to move or even open their wings. This lack of movement causes their muscles to weaken and their bones to deteriorate. Their beaks are cut off to limit the fighting that can occur in such close quarters and under such duress, which affects their ability to eat and function as a chicken.

Pigs, like their poultry counterparts, are crammed together in filthy quarters with limited space to move. Many will go insane from the lack of mental stimulation, movement, and the widespread abuse inflicted on them by the human workers. Breeding sows are housed in metal crates where they can't turn around or turn over. Like chickens, they are bred to grow faster and bigger than normal, which causes sickness and chronic pain. The pain is intensified by the atrophying of muscles and the deterioration of their bones. Those who live long enough to reach the slaughterhouse have to hope the ill-effective stun method knocks them out or they will be conscious through the throat-slitting, or burned alive in the scalding water used to soften their hides for skinning. I'll forever be haunted by the screams of tortured pigs from slaughterhouse videos.

Cows, which evolved to eat grass, are fed an unnatural diet of grain and sometimes diseased animal meat, feathers, hair, skin, hooves, blood and manure. Because their stomachs can't handle this kind of diet, they are given antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to reach slaughter. Also, because cows live in such close quarters with other cows, they need a second antibiotic to compensate for the crowded and unsanitary conditions that are a hotbed for a variety of diseases. Much like pigs, cows don't always lose consciousness after a hit with the stun gun, so they sometimes experience torturous deaths.

In these operations, 16 billion animals are killed each year for our food without legal protections on the federal level, though some states have laws banning certain kinds of practices. Oregon, for example, passed a law in 2007 that will require by 2016 that 4,000 breeding sows won't be housed in gestation crates too small for them to turn around in. According to the USDA website, the Animal Welfare Act only covers farm animals when used in biomedical research, testing, teaching and exhibition. When they are used for food production, these animals aren't even considered animals. Because of our increased demand for meat at the cheapest of prices, we've been complicit in these horrendous practices. Paul McCartney was certainly on to something when he said, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian." I wouldn't go that far, but I bet there would be far more vegetarians and far more omnivores willing to pay more for meat that was ethically raised and slaughtered.

But animal rights aren't the only reason for me to not eat meat. Dr. T. Colin Campbell's book, "The China Study," based upon his extensive longitudinal study of diet in China, found that people lived longer when less than 5 percent of their diet (if any) was meat and dairy. The problems of heart disease, cancers, and stroke - diseases of affluence - were only seen in people who ate a diet like that common in the U.S., where at least 20 percent of the diet consists of meat and dairy. As wealthier Chinese began eating like Americans, those diseases of affluence increased. There are also serious health concerns to consider from eating animals that were pumped with antibiotics to the tune of 25 million pounds a year (70 percent of the total used) in the U.S., which has caused a rise in antibiotic-resistant superbugs. This is an epidemic waiting to happen and we seem to be sweeping the problem under the rug in the hopes that it will never actually happen.

On the environmental side, factory farmed animals produce 130 times the amount of excrement as the entire U.S. population - all without waste treatment systems. There are no federal guidelines for how to handle this issue, so it is often left in large lagoons or spread on crops, which both contribute to runoff that contaminates the soil and kills wildlife. This abundance of excrement also becomes a hotbed for parasites and bacteria. Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, including a significant portion from methane, which is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and is set to increase 60 percent by 2030 because of the increased demand for beef. Through belching and flatulence, cows let out enough methane to release more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all forms of transportation combined.

The way we currently raise animals for meat in this country is unethical, in our treatment of them and for our own health and the health of the environment around us. It isn't a sustainable practice and we will be faced with some serious issues in the future if we don't start addressing it today. For these reasons (among many others), I'm a vegan. I cannot in good conscience contribute to such an abhorrent industry. I may not want to be a vegetarian or vegan evangelist (though if prompted, I could talk about the wonderful reasons to eat less meat and about more ethical ways to produce and consume meat), but I'm certainly proud to say that I don't eat meat.

And perhaps the next time I attend a tailgater with Tillamook dairy farmers, I won't chicken out of merely mentioning that I'm a vegan.

Sara Gwin is a senior in psychology and women studies. The opinions expressed in her columns do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Gwin can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.