Not "a-tone-ment" but "at-one-ment".

I do not believe that Joseph Smith pronounced the word "atonement" as "a-tone-ment," but instead he spoke it "at-one-ment." Joseph Smith had not learned the word "solidarity" perhaps. After all, he grew up in the sticks, where there were no big schools or Universities... and the primary book for him to learn reading from was of course the Holy Bible. His vocabulary was limited... But whos isn't? I don't know every other f-word either, you know and smurf? Probably nobody does. We do know that what one reads certainly has an enormous influence upon one's thinking. I'm very glad that he did not study and become entrenched in nuclear physics and the Art of War. Lucky for us, he was lost deep in the forest of kraft des heiligen, and thus his vision reflected that intellectual background.

Like Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ was born in a hick town with no school, in a region with no University. When he was old enough to travel on his own, Jesus went to northern India, to study with the Æsir. He learned many things, including physiology and medicine, then brought this knowledge back to his home town and region to share it with folks there; to let his knowledge serve his people. He knew that "you are what you eat," and started trying to explain that at the "last supper." Well, everyone had been drinking a little wine and eating; there probably wasn't really anyone sitting there with a steno-pad writing down his every word. So, what we have in the Holy Bible regarding that event was written down later, after the wine wore off... and perhaps not everyone really understood what he was talking about. So anyway, now we have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion to remind us of the thing he was perhaps trying to explain: "You are what you eat." "What you eat is what it ate or what it grew in." "We have what we have because of the cooperation of large numbers of people in a collective economic system... blah blah blah... anybody listening? More wine? No, thank you. The other day I had a hangover so bad I felt like I was sweating blood."

Farmers grow wheat. Teamsters carry it to the mill. Millers grind it into flour. Teamsters carry the flour to the bakery. Bakers make it into bread. People worked to make their clothing; to make the wagons and tack for the horses driven by the Teamsters; to make the harvesting equipment; the mill; the bakery. Men work to maintain the aqueducts that bring safe clean drinking water to our homes. It is because of our at-one-ment that we can have that scrap of bread and water on Sunday. It is certainly not ritual cannibalism, but a symbol of how, through community and cooperation, we as a "one-ment" or collective, provide that which is first on every list of necessities: Food. Eats. Grub. Chow.

What we want is not mere "Food," but Wholesome Food, free of toxins introduced by pollution, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical "ferti-lie-zer". We don't want mere "water," but Pure Water, free of toxic pollution. Certainly the only sure way to ensure that there be no pollution in our food and water supply is to not produce any pollution. How complicated is that? Garbage in, garbage out, right? Remember that little salt grinder at the bottom of the ocean? It's been down there a long time; so long now, that all of the ocean is salty water. Lucky for us, it's just salt, right? Or, well, lucky for the fish we like to eat, and thus lucky for us.

Many times I've heard people say that "Jesus Christ died for our sins." Oh, yah, and ye slythy toves did gyre and gymble in ye wabe, believe it or not! So, somehow his death and suffering makes it ok for me to pollute, right? Ahhh... so let's hang all the oil company executives and be done with it. It's their fault. They bribed congress to write laws that made us do it, right? Oh, and hired "fixer" lawyers who know every loophole in regulation C-22... or something, so they know how to talk around the problem and ignore the evidence while believing themselves to appear to be giving the matter due process... to wangle the same straw decisions they paid the judges for out of the courts, or whatever conspiracy nut you care to crack over the head with a Wikipedia and smurf.

But really, what it was is that there was a corrupt administration, but Jesus trusted that the leadership, court, or whatever clique animated the puppet show at court that day... and tossed the bread to fetch for the pigs that did the whipping and crucifixions... to do what was righteous and godly; only they "failed to listen" to the "voice" of Goodly Reason, and commanded that he be whipped, beaten, humiliated, and hung out to dry on a crucifix. And "everybody knew," or at least potentially could have in some idealized societal organization wherein everyone reads the highly detailed 10 cubit long news-scrolls... that it was evil and wrong, especially since Jesus was such an awesome Guru. But, in real life, nobody stepped forward to stop it from happening because they were, each as an individual, intimidated by the very violence they truly wanted to stop from being about to happen.

Everybody thought he was dead after they took him down off the cross, so they put him into a crypt... and three days later the smell woke him up from his coma... He decided he had to do something about the communication situation. He knew that if everyone, in solidarity, stood up to put a stop to these things that were so exceedingly unjust that we, as a complete society, could have a much more stable and sustainable civilization. He set about teaching the people correct principles and morals, and about creating an organization with which to bootstrap a new more evolved social order. He called his apostles anything but too late for the next supper, and sent them away on random walks... without cellular phones, scripts, or purses... Un-fortune-ately, he had instructed them that it was the wicked who needed the most help, and so they approached them first, without adequate backup... got mobbed and done in. None survived to tell Jesus that "hey, we really ought to recruit the good people first, before we try to tame that unruly mob of orcs." Presumptively, there were a few good men out there, and their voices were loud enough, and some of them could actually write without getting caught, and cried 'em some good letters home to Jesus about it, so the new church could adapt it's strategy.

So, why are we all participating in an "at-one-ment" that is certainly producing garbage and pollution? Why are we buying it? When will the smell wake us up, Sunday drivers? Yeah... he was a day-ay Mormon...  Can we, in good faith, go to church every Sunday, eat the little scrap of bread, and do that "sunday swoon" thing in our mind that makes us feel like we've magically communed with God... and have that ritual act magically purge us of our sins? Oh wait, I'm confusing Holy Communion with Confession, Repentance, Pennance, and Reparation, right? But what the hell do I know? I'm a hick convert who never went to church much. All this terminology is new to me. Maybe I just don't really understand it right... probably walking by it too slow to really see it, or something.

So, eating the cookie and milk reaffirms our promise to participate in the "at-one-ment" of Wholesome Goodness. Ok. But to keep the promises... don't I need to... Uh, face something I've been trying not to look at... it's ugly, and it's going to take a lot of work to make it beautiful, America.

Despite that most of us are not directly responsible for producing any pollution, or anything... Well, many of you drive cars that pollute, so, well, but... you didn't have many options available when you bought it, or anything, right? There's diesel or gasoline; sort of a false dichotomy really. The fact that you pollute is really a supply side problem. So let us boycott. Or well, we could riot... but I doubt that will help solve the problem. Boycotting didn't do anything but almost drive them out of business; but on the bright side, We the People now own stock in the automobile companies... Hmmm. I wonder what that buys us? Can we vote at their shareholder meetings now? I've got some ideas for how they could seriously improve their product line...

Nor will sending tortured and tormented young men off to war to get more oil for the, uh, majority(?) solve the problem. We need them right here at home, learning to construct the new transportation infrastructure, setting up windmills in the cleansing winds, and learning to be part of our peaceful and civilized community. It's just wrong to teach them to shoot guns at other people. Let's teach them to build things with other people -- to participate in the "at-one-ment." Let's have a "barn-raising" to install streetcar systems, wind farms, and a new smart-grid electrical system. We can do it. Yes we can.

And if your business depends on the industries that these changes affect... Remember that people won't let you starve. If the pollution causes climate change that leads to crop failure, what will we eat then? Smog? Long wee-wee mee-mee pig? (Mow-wah?) If the pollution is causing atherosclerosis, cardiac arterial disease, cancer, and other health problems, then is it really that good, that we can't quit? Advanced capitalism, anyone? Smoke it out if you've got it, right? If the activities involved in obtaining the raw materials used to make pollution with involve armed combat with people of other nations, do the ends justify the means? Do the advantaged outweigh the disadvantaged? No gout about it, we can have transportation without pollution and without contention between nations for the finite fuel resource. The same manufacturing industries that make cars today can just as easily make streetcars and aerogenerators tomorrow. And there will still be cars; just not as many of them...

So now perhaps you've agreed with me, and you are not eaten by a mob of the starving and tax exempt, despite that you're just sitting there, doing nothing about it, or anything... Though, perhaps doing nothing is doing something about it, unless you're reading this while driving or sitting in traffic. Someday soon, you think, we are going to do something about it. What? When? How? Where does it begin? How does it begin? Are we just waiting for our leaders to tell us what to do? Someday soon that Sunday swoon will stop having as strong an effect on our self perceptions, perhaps...

That ritual of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, is not magical all by itself. Intrinsically, it's just a bite of cheap white bread off the grocery store shelf and a shot of mildly chlorinated water straight out of a sink faucet, or a special wheat cracker with a sip of watered down cheap wine; water straight out of the tap with words spoken over it, is all the shazam de plume it's really got in it, or anything... Doing a "Sunday swoon" when you eat it doesn't really do any magic either. Your car is still sitting out there in the church parking lot, and you'll pollute wee-wee-wee aaallll the way home from the dry cleaner.

What makes this sort of ritual magic really work is this: know that the ritual in itself does nothing more than create a point in time and space at which we perform a symbolic action that represents, and reifies within our consciousness, a thing that in reality takes place over a protracted time frame, integrated as part of our daily lives. The wedding is not the marriage. The marriage is an aspect of your lives together; of how you share your life together. By a similar token... the sacrament is not the "at-one-ment."

Integrity, Accountability, and Resolving Conflicts Within Dysfunctional Domestic Relations

DRAFT I've published this article a little early, before it's really done. I will be updating it as time permits. I'll update the time-stamp when I remember to, and will certainly do so when it's complete, so that it will refresh the syndication feeds... (Update, 2012-12-12: I'm sorry; I've been very busy, and have not completed this article. I promise I'll put some more time in on it as soon as I can...)


At the ACLU web site, we encounter an article entitled "Ending Domestic Violence Requires Holding Police Accountable."  I don't disagree with the assertion that Police, and Court officials, must be held accountable... Here in Utah, the State Constitution, Article IV, Section 10, mandates an oath of service which states that:

All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

They are not in this boat alone. After all, we are all expected to be accountable for our own acts and omissions. Clearly, it is also the case that the courts and lawyers must also be held accountable... and certainly that the alleged "victim" as well as the alleged "primary aggressor" must be held accountable to truth, fair play, and good faith, since, as per Article I, Section 24, "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation." For the time being, I will assume that all 50 states have similar clauses in their constitutions.

So, once again, who watches the watchers? Who will hold them accountable? If you tell me, we'll both know.

The ACLU article claims that the woman obtained the protective order after the man assaulted her, etc... What I wonder is if that allegation was ever proven before a trier of fact or not, in a criminal court, where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," within the context of a presumption of innocence. Perhaps the article should more properly state that she obtained the protective order after alleging that he assaulted her. She could easily claim that he had assaulted her, when in reality it was her who had been the primary aggressor. I know for certain, from personal experience and eyewitness testimony, that this does happen relatively often. And does anyone, including the two of them, know for certain exactly what was said over the telephone during the call that Mr. Perez allegedly made to Ms. Valdez?

In this particular cherry-picked example case, he returned to commit actual violence, something that happens only rarely, overall... I think they are making an invalid attempt at moving from an existential generalization --- "Rover loves to wag his tail. Therefore, something loves to wag its tail." --- to a universal instantiation --- "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." What they are really saying is more like "Something loves to wag its tail. Therefore, everything loves to wag its tail." Obviously, not everything has a tail, and not everything with one likes to wag it. (Maybe yous should check my logic, just to make sure I'm not just trying to control your leg?... or you could just cut my tongue out and be done with it.)

It's really too bad that there was no diversionary program in place where they would, ostensibly, and potentially, be taught how to communicate effectively with one another, and to utilize some formal method of conflict resolution. Communication and conflict resolution skills would go a long way towards preventing the kind of angry frustration that leads up to that state of mind where people who think they're like a spring that's got to sproing when it's wound up "go postal" for lack of any other response in their repoire-noir...

I assert that exorcising gender bias is an important "civil liberty." How about exemplifying at least one case where it was the female who in fact attacked the male? I'm willing to bet that no advocates of these protective order laws have performed any honest studies regarding the statistical likelihood of actual violence per se, as contrasted with alleged violations involving mere communication... Or how often communication per se contains any actual threat of violence per se... vs expression of frustration and angst over specific resentments pertinent to their individual conflicts?.. They should also study the effects of even further frustrating communication between them through the imposition of no-contact orders, and the degree of alienation of affections and level of resentments that imposition creates. "Sir, you're not locked in jail because you're wrong. You're locked up so we can separate you from one another. And I'm sorry, but the Miranda law forbids me from taking your statement. And if you don't calm down and stop talking about it, we're going to have to lock you in solitary confinement, incommunicado behind a ream of boilerplate..."

What you're not saying here about these laws is that the courts are issuing these protective orders without requiring (or allowing) actual evidence of true abuse. The standard of proof is merely "a preponderance of the evidence," and I'd bet that quite often, there's not really any evidence, or anything, other than the woman's testimony, often obtained via an interview process conducted by a professional "victim advocate", which gets "heard" while the man's testimony, if ever solicited or presented, is essentially ignored. I think that what gets "prepondered" is often not actual "evidence" per se, but instead "prejudicial presumptions" such as that which are built-into the Utah "Cohabitant Abuse Act" itself, which presumes there is a "primary aggressor" and a "victim", offering no other model of the conflict's actual social dynamics. She is then given a "protective" order that allows her to call the cops and get the man arrested for merely sending an email or text message, and she can get them to arrest him for that even if the order has a modification allowing asynchronous written communication to occur! (If you follow this blog, you'll learn more about that later on, after I feel comfortable with publishing details of my Civil Rights Complaint.)

The protective order forms are standardized, and they contain wording that makes it illegal for the Respondent to contact the Petitioner, but not vise versa. So apparently the police and court officials think it's "legal" for her to send him a derisive text message that asks a rude leading question, but if he replies, she can complain and ask them to arrest him for it, and they'll follow through and actually arrest him. You see, they "have a professional responsibility to screen charges when a complaint has been filed." They seem to think that it's "legal" for her to come to his apartment and knock on his door demanding entry, but if he opens the door, he's violated one of the injunctional contract's boilerplate no-contact provisions?!

I've spoken with several other men who have also had very similar experiences with this. I was told about a man who's ex-girlfriend had a protective order against him. She called or sent a message to him saying that if he did not come and get his things, she would throw them out the door into the street. He went to get his stuff, and she called the cops and had him arrested. The court imposed a one year "mandatory" jail sentence on him. Another man said that the court imposed a no-contact order between himself and his girlfriend. She sent him a text message asking him if he was going to contact her anymore. He answered "No" -- two letters, N O -- and they arrested him and he spent a year in the Utah State Penitentiary. Certainly there may be material details not mentioned by those victims of protective order abuse during the brief conversations I had with them... but since those are the relevant details of actual events that they chose to focus on first, I must assume their complaints are valid and should be addressed by a finder of fact... It would be amazing if the police and his attorney would actually interview him and obtain that information.

I have personally witnessed Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department prisoner transport bailiffs confiscating evidence from a prisoner who had been transported to court in order to appear pro se (without representation by legal counsel) at a protective order hearing related to the charges they had him in jail on, pre-trial. The evidence they took from him was a letter sent to him in jail, written by his wife, who had been "advised" to obtain a protective order against him by the State. In the letter she told him that she did not want a protective order, and that he should bring that letter to court as evidence of that. At court, she was represented by a state appointed victim advocate lawyer, and was not ever asked or allowed to speak at the hearing. The man was not given much opportunity to speak either, and his evidence had been confiscated. The State of Utah imposed a protective order, and thereby separated him from his family. This happened in September or October of 2011.

In terms of police accountability, they need to listen and take appropriate action when the "Respondent" (the victim of protective order abuse) makes a valid counter-complaint. In Utah, 78B-7-115(3) is meant to create sanctions when either party acts in "bad faith" or "with intent to harass or intimidate." The Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act also mandates that certain statements be included on the standard boilerplate forms that warn the Petitioner (person applying for the protective order) that it's a felony to use false information to obtain a protective order, or to use one to abuse the judicial process. The statute makes that attempt at instantiating accountability, but in my experience, neither the police, nor the court officials actually do anything about it even in blatantly obvious cases of perjury or protective order abuse. They don't seem to care about due process, the rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, or the Constitution and pertinent statutes.

In the Valdez v. Perez case, how can we know for sure whether or not the man actually threatened her, or vise versa? It seems to me that in court, before a trier of fact, it would amount to her word against his. We're not told in this brief article whether he made or attempted to make any answer or counter-complaints. If he did, and they failed to react or investigate, that might explain the level of angst, frustration, and anger that, unchecked by appropriate early psychiatric intervention, led to his commission of the murder after the cockroach whispered in his ear "Just kill the bitch. She deserves it! (unspoken... That way we get two birds with one stone, you confused and oppressed Hispanic rival male... who will fail to realize that murder is not his own nor a very good idea and then assert that he won't be a columbine kid."

And what about cases where the woman threatens or attacks the man, and then calls the cops on him? The problem is that there is rarely a clear distinction such as "primary aggressor" and "victim." There are two people who don't know how to communicate with one another effectively, who were whelped under the auspices of a "dominant culture" that applied fiat through violence or other forms of imbalance of power, rather than influence through reason, as a means of getting one's way... They circumcise baby boys, inflicting excruciating pain and a lifetime of deprivation of normal pleasure. Thus applying the dynamics of power and control, they subjugate those males who have been given the "first rite" -- essentially an initiation into slavehood -- to "authority." This psychological conditioning continues with spanking, sending them to their rooms, expression of anger that carries with it an implied threat of violence or reminder of past violence, and so forth. It all comes down to an aggressive imposition of an imbalance of power, or bullying.

With regards to accountability to the integrity of uniform operation of the Rule of Law, there must not be a double standard that allows women to beat up men with "protective" orders based on hearsay and lies; that allows women to harass men with the threat of arrest for "crimes" like answering an email with the wrong answer; so she doesn't get her way, and gets him arrested for it... Nor may there be a double standard where police and court officials apply the law only when it punishes the male, or only when it punishes the out-group member.

I assert that protective orders are more often used to abuse men than they are used to actually protect women. Can you prove that wrong? Oh, but then I'm the one with burden of proof? I think that these laws need to be studied in terms of what they actually do, rather than in terms of the straw man arguments used to convince congress to vote them into law. These laws are the new "Jim Crow" laws. They create and encourage alienation of affections, splitting up families. They encourage "criminal thinking errors" on the part of the Petitioner, who can use the protective order to "close the channel" of communication, effectively preventing any actual resolution of their conflict.

It is no more morally acceptable for a woman to use a "protective" order to bully a man than it is for her to use physical violence to do so. If yous can claim that an email that contains no overt threats of harm is transitively a form of domestic violence, then certainly the "protective" order itself is one. When a woman can obtain one with little evidence or burden of proof, and then use it to have a man jailed for something that is not even remotely criminal, and is certainly not criminal in the absence of the "protective" order, then that imbalance of power being created by the "protective" order is no better than the imbalance created by difference in physical size or ability to win a physical altercation.

The accountability that is needed is to uphold that all laws of a general nature are to have uniform operation. That applies to police, to judges, to physicians, OB/GYN pediatricians, and women as well as men. Domestic violence can not be eliminated without treating the entire family unit. Violence against infant males creates resentments and PSD that will come back someday and bite you in the ass. Stop the cycle of violence by not beginning it with each new generation.

In the state of Utah, the state judges are required to attend ongoing education classes. I happen to know that one of the classes they attended was one taught by a psychologist who has studied the effects of childhood trauma on that child's adult behavior later in life. They are taught that one of the primary reasons to end domestic violence is to prevent that traumatization, to reduce future crime rates. I agree, since I know that people learn by example. If the only way somebody knows how to solve a problem is to... There are standard reactions to common situations that people pick up out of context in life. The first reaction is not always the best one. It is important that people who run into these kind of problems be diverted into "cognitive restructuring" therapy, or classes...

In one of those therapy sessions (if Medicare pays for it) or classes (if Pell grants can?) the attendees are taught about the "thinking errors." One of those, from a handout, is:

Justifying:  In avoiding responsibility for her own behavior, a person finds a reason for what she has done.  "He wouldn't do what I wanted him to do, so I yelled at him."  or  "They all did it, so why can't I?"

It would be despicably ironic if the Court's version of "Justice" works according to that, uhh, principle!  Another "thinking error" is called "closing the channel." It's when she claims he fails to listen to what she had to say, or when she shouts over him to prevent me him from saying something that might give an indication that he was paying attention after all... So, what good does it do when only one of the two people is "treated" with "therapy" that points out these thinking errors? It all comes down to communication skills and relationship dynamics, right?

It seems to me that the whole point of treating domestic violence as a societal illness is to eliminate bullying and violence as a means of conflict "resolution." How else can conflicts be truly resolved, if not through a formal process of some kind that necessarily involves communication?

[...|...]

The presumption of innocence stems from the idea that most people are not criminals. I bet that a careful study of these "Protective Order" cases would reveal that the majority of the complaints do not involve any actual violence, per se. Honestly, if the Respondent truly had committed a serious act of aggression against the Petitioner, then Petitioner could have had Respondent charged with a crime for it, right? Well, actually, often enough she can have him charged with a crime regardless of whether he's committed one... and certainly they issue these "protective" orders without either due process of law or true evidence... And then the Petitioner can have Respondent arrested for things that are not truly crimes, in the absence of a "protective" order. So then, Respondent can be jailed for something that's not truly dangerous... (no time to polish this now. Got to go, sorry.)

[...|...]

In Utah, from what I gather, the warrants issued to the peace officers who are charged with arresting someone do not contain very much information about what the person is accused of having done. It tells them the title of the crime the person is alleged to have committed, and it tells them the amount of the bail. It does not describe any details of what the person is alleged to have actually done that would constitute a violation of the law. The problem is that sometimes they have set the bail very high, which I think would tend to cause them to believe that the thing the person is accused of must be very serious or dangerous. Utah Code 76-2-404 defines the circumstances under which they are authorized to use deadly force.

If a warrant was issued for two counts of third degree felony violations of a protective order with the bail set at $100000, and that's all they officially know about it... they might go to arrest the man believing him to be very dangerous to either them, the public, or the woman holding the protective order. If the things the man is alleged to have actually done that supposedly violate that protective order are not truly violent in nature, or turn out to not truly be violations of the protective order, then what justifies the extremely high bail amount? You may think this scenario is unlikely to happen, and so would I have prior to my own experiences, which I promise to describe with more detail in a future blog entry.

The courts need to be held accountable to keeping bail amounts at levels that are not constitutionally excessive. Warrants must be required to contain a description of what the person is alleged to have done that would constitute a violation of the law. For example, if the offence is for "having written several emails that did not pertain to their child under a protective order that limits email to only those that pertain to the child" then that information ought to be available to the officers sent to arrest the "perpetrator". Certainly a crime charged for such an email, had the email been threatening in nature, would certainly feature that fact about that email. In that case, the exact nature of the threat ought to be included in what those officers are given to believe about the suspect.

Leaving that sort of information out, and then allowing them to extrapolate regarding the type or seriousness of the alleged actus reas based solely on the title and degree of the charges and the bail amount is a set-up for potential wrongful use of deadly force should the suspect panic and attempt to flee. And what would a man think, if all he really did was send a text message, under a protective order that allowed email, asking if his son has returned from a visit with his grandfather, but they have issued a warrant alleging a violation of the protective order, and then gone and set bail at $100000!?? This really happened! And what if, in his experience, they refuse to listen to his side of the story, and are known to keep people jailed for extended periods of time, pre-trial, despite that the alleged crime is non violent per se? He may feel that he is well within his rights to avoid being arrested, since the excessive bail renders the warrant illegal; especially if he needs time to gather exculpatory evidence to present in court.

[...]

When I attempted to post my comments to that article on the ACLU web site, their antispambot refused to allow me to do so. That is very annoying, and uncannily resembles the "channel closing" reactions to my attempts to communicate with women who advocate and exploit these laws with their one-sided rhetoric.

Several times when I've had things to say regarding the "Twofaced Women Who Act Like Violence has Been Done" law... on various news web sites... I've been censored unless I express a point of view copacetic with the mounted dogmatic rhetoric used to convince people that these laws are fair, effective, and necessary. I suspect that men who express opinions not in keeping with that of these women's advocate's straw man arguments are met with "adult voice" "ex-communication" admonishments and channel closing dismissals, if not outright shrieking, pinching, or slapping to stop them from saying it. It's amusing to think that a woman so quick to censor and so willfully ignorant could ever have learned to program an artificial intelligence that blocks these sort of remarks from being posted on the ACLU web site... She'd have held herself back and never graduated college, right?

Letter to US Global AIDS Coordinator, Washington DC

Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator
SA-29, 2nd floor
2201 C. Street NW
Washington, DC  20522-2920


Dear Global AIDS Coordinator,

I know for certain that many American and World Citizens are horrified and appalled by the thing that this article on your web log is talking about:

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/swaziland_pepfar

It reveals something about what you really are that you do not allow uncensored comments to be posted there. I guarantee there are links to that page with plenty of commentary by We The People whom you've been blatantly ignoring. You do not have our permission to use our tax dollars for any HIV prevention program involving genital mutilation. I am certain that I speak for a growing contingent of the American population. CDC statistics show that fewer and fewer Americans are allowing their son's penises to be mutilated. Many Americans no longer trust the corporate hospital birthing system. It's no wonder.

It is certain that circumcision does not prevent HIV, which is most famously caused by having intimate contact with an infected individual. I've read that iatrogenic HIV infection rates are very high in Africa. Teaching them to masturbate will do more for preventing HIV than amputating the men's foreskins will. Amputating the most sensitive part of their bodies in an attempt to make sexuality less interesting will not prevent them from ‘‘doing it.'' It hasn't worked here in the United States. Why would it work in Africa?

(Reuters) - Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
"We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners," Millett told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Doctors believe circumcision protects men because of specialized cells in the foreskin of the penis, which is removed in the procedure. The foreskin is filled with immune cells called Langerhans cells, which are the immune system's sentinels and attach easily to viruses — including HIV.
In addition, sexual intercourse may cause tiny tears in the foreskin, allowing the virus into the bloodstream.
The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent -- the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.
Millett's team studied 1,079 black and 957 Latino bisexual and homosexual men from New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. They filled out a computer survey and were tested for the AIDS virus.
"Overall, we found no association between circumcision status and HIV infection status among black or Latino (men who have sex with men)," said Millett, who presented his findings to the CDC's National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.
Experts knew circumcision would not protect a female sex partner, nor the male sex partner being penetrated.
But Millett's study found no benefit of circumcision to any of the men. "We also found no protective benefit of circumcision among those men reporting recent unprotected sex with a male partner in which they were exclusively the insertive male partner," he said.
HIV is much more common among black and Latino men than whites and this may offset any protection offered by circumcision, Millett said. Black and Latino men are more likely to have sex with other black and Latino men, and thus may be exposed to HIV more often than white men.
The CDC is about to release new estimates of how many people become infected with the fatal and incurable human immunodeficiency virus each year in the United States.
The CDC estimates that more than 1 million Americans are infected, of the 33 million infected people globally.

The Langerhans cells probably prevent HIV. They bring the virus inside in order to destroy it, before it can affect the DNA of other cells it enters. So amputating the foreskin is likely to increase the HIV rate, not decrease it.

"Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI. Conclusions: [circumcision] is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population."
Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population
Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA; International Conference on AIDS (15th : 2004 : Bangkok, Thailand).
Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. TuPeC4861. Naval Health Research Center, DHAPP, San Diego, CA, United States
Background: Lack of male circumcision has been found to be a risk factor for HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in several studies performed in developing countries. However, the few studies conducted in developed nations have yielded inconsistent results. Policy regarding circumcision of male infants as a prevention measure against HIV/STI remains a controversial topic. This study describes the prevalence of circumcision and its association with HIV and STI in a U. S. military population.
Methods: This is a case-control study of male HIV infected U. S. military personnel (n= 232) recruited from 7 military medical centers and male U. S. Navy controls (n=516) from a general aircraft carrier population. Cases and controls completed similar self-administered HIV behavioral risk surveys. Case circumcision status was abstracted from medical charts while control status was reported on the survey. Cases and controls were frequency matched on age. Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI.
Results: The proportion of circumcised men did not significantly differ between cases (84.9%) and controls (81.8%). Prevalence of circumcision among men born in the U. S. was higher (85.0%) than those born elsewhere (58.1%). After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users, 5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+ partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high for men who were single or divorced/separated.
Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population.

There are many critiques of the studies that allege that circumcision prevents HIV infection. The fact is, amputating part of the body's integumentary system is obviously not a good way to prevent infection. It is quite the opposite. The United States has the highest HIV rate in the industrialized world, and also has the highest circumcision rate. You need to read more than just the few ‘‘studies'' written by the circumfetishists who enjoy amputating the most sensitive part of other men's bodies. They delight in rendering other men impotent. This circumcision campaign is a vaguely masked act of violence against males. It amounts to an act of war — a war of agression — against those nations. Sooner or later, they are going to learn the truth, whether you like it or not, even if you censor their Anatomy textbooks to cut the foreskin out of the picture. The mere use of anesthesia does not render the act ‘‘non-violent,'' nor does performing it in a hospital or clinical setting render it a ‘‘medical procedure.'' Using anesthesia adds insult to injury — he'll never feel a thing… after you amputate 50 to 80 percent of the sensitive nerve endings from his penis.

‘‘Circumcision'' is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as ‘‘Male Genital Mutilation.'' It is the wanton amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part, which is certainly a second degree felony under Utah Statute 76-5-105, ‘‘Mayhem.'' Infant Genital Mutilation also certainly falls under 76-5-109, ‘‘Child Abuse''. In particular, the following definitions given under 76-5-109(1) can be easily shown to be applicable:

•  76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(B). ‘‘involves physical torture''
•  76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(G). ‘‘any conduct toward a child that results in severe emotional harm, [...] or severe impairment of the child's ability to function,'' and
•  76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(H). ‘‘any injury that creates a permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, limb, or organ.''

Given the true and factual information about the anatomy and physiological function of the male prepuce explained by the D.O.C. Policy Statement, along with the above definitions from the Utah Statutes, Child Abuse 76-5-109(2)(a) makes Infant Male Genital Mutilation a second degree felony. Other illegal acts involved include the inchoate offense of Solicitation for Conspiracy to commit, Fraud by Deception, and Omission or failure to act. Genital Mutilation is not a ‘‘rite.'' It is a crime. Further, because this brutally harmful atrocity has seen such widespread and systematic practice in the United States of America, it truly fits the definition of a ‘‘Crime Against Humanity'' as defined by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute recognizes rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, ‘‘ are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. ''

The United States of America justified the invasion of Iraq, in part, by citing the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein's regime---e.g. the use of poison gas against the Kurdish people. If that war was justifiable, then perhaps it is reasonable to consider Male Genital Mutilation to be a threat to U.S. National Security. It does not require very many steps of reasoning to cross the border between U.S. actions in Iraq and forseeing a large posse entering within this country to do battle against these domestic violations of human rights. Fortunately, this is not a battle likely to be won with the use of destructive weaponry. Violence is the problem, not the solution. Furthermore, if our own citizens, law enforcement, and courts will not acknowledge Genital Mutilation as an atrocious crime, then certainly our ‘‘government'', guilty of selective enforcement of it's own laws, faces a very serious legitimation crisis. We can no longer live in denial of this obvious threat to our health and welfare. We need to look the serpent in the eye, see it for what it is, and help it to become entire and whole again. We must end the cycle of violence by refusing to continue to inflict pain and deprivation upon each new generation, and by protecting infants from those who would continue this atrocity.

I encourage you to do much more reading before you implement such drastic measures. What you are doing to those men in Swaziland is highly offensive to the majority of the population of planet earth. It is a violation of international treaties that prohibit torture and crimes against humanity. HIV can be more effectively prevented with sex education and condoms.

Invasion of the Snuggy-Snatchers

A Snuggy Snatcher getting high.

I was just thinking about how one would explain to a little boy why his penis has a "turtleneck" when his father's doesn't.

I think I'd say, pointing to his akroposthion,  "Jeepers, kiddo! That's your snuggy. Daddy doesn't have a snuggy because there was an evil regime in power during the year he was born who strategically posted snuggy-snatchers at every birthing facility in the nation..." And so, in spite of the fact that my family was ostensibly Catholic, my snuggy was snatched off. It was also cut out of the picture in every anatomy and physiology textbook available to G.P. They tried to disappear it; to make it never have existed. If you don't believe me, then visit your local libraries, and look for the male prepuce in the anatomy textbooks you may or may not find there.

Nature's Design Altered.

Snuggy Snatchers are quite vile beasties. They get high on the suffering of others. It gives them a rush in their gonads when they bite off a baby's snuggy. That's why they do it. They are very dangerous and especially clever at making up lies to explain away their Pederastic wrongdoings. They hang medical diplomas on their walls and pretend to know more about it than your mother... who had probably never been allowed to see one. Like wolves in sheep's clothing, these green meanies dressed as warm fuzzies will take the babies away to secret soundproof chambers where nobody can hear them scream. They strap the baby down on an infant sized crucifix (known as a Circumstraint) with Velcro straps, and only after locking themselves securely into that closet, do they grab the baby's snuggy with their evil implements.

My apologies to the artists who created the works shown here, that I photographed through the window of a downtown Salt Lake City art gallery, for I have not formally asked for their permission to publish photographs of their artwork. I hope they are okay with my having posted these, and with my interpretation of the beasties they had displayed that day.