Children's safety should be focus, not polygamy

For the past couple of months, I have been following the case at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas religiously – slight pun intended. My fascination with the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the FLDS began years ago when I learned about Warren Jeffs, the leader and self-proclaimed profit of the court.

When Jeffs was finally apprehended in August of 2006, I nearly threw a party to celebrate. And it felt like Christmas when Utah courts sentenced Jeffs for 10 years to life for his numerous crimes, including accomplice to rape, incest and molestation.

There are few people on the face of this planet that I would attribute as purely evil –Warren Jeffs in one of them.

But the recent events with the YFZ Ranch have left me somewhat disturbed. I hate the unspeakable horrors the children, girls and boys, face as a part of the FLDS – rape, underage marriage, excommunication and abandonment. But it is equally despicable to see a mother’s anguish at having her child forcefully taken away from her.

In a nutshell, the series of events began in March, after Texas Child Protective Services received a phone call from a 16-year-old girl claiming to have been sexually abused at the ranch. The phone call resulted in a raid of the compound on April 3.

The raid itself resulted in Child Protective Services removing over 500 women and children from the ranch over the next five days. On April 17, a Texas court ruled that the children would remain in state custody and were to be split between 16 various foster home and CPS facilities.

On May 22, an appellate court overturned the original decision, claiming that CPS had no right to remove the children from their homes. Seven days later, the Texas Supreme Court concurred with the appellate decision and ordered that all the children be returned.

“The child custody issues and other court proceedings do not impact the ongoing criminal investigation,” said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general’s office in the Los Angeles Times. “The evidence collected from the polygamist compound and reviewed by investigators will dictate the direction of this investigation.”

Thank goodness the Texas CPS doesn’t give up so easily. The most frequently used argument about the entire situation is that this is somehow an attack on religious freedom or polygamy.

Seriously, who cares if someone chooses to be a polygamist for religious reasons? If having multiple spouses and a pack of children is your passion, then more power to you. If a person can keep all of his wives or her husbands happy and safe; if all the children are developing in a healthy, stable environment, then there is no reason that family should be judged because their views on familiar structure are different from the mainstream.

The problem isn’t polygamy.

The problem is girls being forced into marriage and sexual relations at 14-years-old.

The problem is young men being disowned or run out of their communities because they are “competition” for the older men, who require more wives.

The problem is women being raped for the cause of procreation because some dirty, old man named Warren Jeffs declared that his libido-driven, middle-aged male followers need to sleep with a different woman every night.

The problem has escalated out of control.

“Let’s say you’re a 6-month-old girl, no evidence whatsoever of any abuse,” said Mark Shurtleff, a Utah Attorney General, to the Salt Lake City Deseret News. “They’re simply saying, ‘You, in this culture, may grow up to be a child bride when you’re 14. Therefore we’re going to remove you now when you’re 6 months old.’ Or, ‘You’re a 6-month-old boy; 25, 30 years, 40 years from now you’re going to be a predator, so we’re going to take you away now.’”

Shurtleff disagreed with the removal of the women and children on a very good principle – thought crime. Despite the constant unease of a 1984-esc society, thankfully thoughts, at least in the United States, are not a crime.

However, premeditation and thought are two very different things. If the investigation turns up any evidence to suggest premeditated rape, as in the arrangement of a 12-year-old to a 22-year-old, the perpetrators better immediately end up behind bars.

This might result in another chaotic attempt to rescue women and children from the FLDS, a venture that, once again, might be fruitless.

So the real question, the fact that has left me disturbed, is this: is it better to save a child’s future based on circumstantial evidence of what might happen or honor the rights of the parents charged with the safety of that child?

Mark Shurtleff says no. Texas Child Protective Services says yes. Once again, the country is divided over the welfare of its youngest citizens – excuse the jab at the abortion issue.

The only conceivable possibility for solving the problem is to follow the red-taped, bureaucratic trail of case-by-case examination, investigation, prosecution and resolve. But by the time that happens, Warren Jeffs will have probably been released from his lifetime sentence and marrying his next child-bride.

'The Paper' does not do journalism justice

"Journalists are the most important part of the world."

At least we are according to Amanda Lorber, editor in chief of the Cypress Bay High School newspaper The Circuit. Amanda and her staff are the new focus of MTV's "The Paper," a reality show about life in a newsroom.

There's only one problem: it isn't a newsroom; it's a high school class. No self-respecting newspaper would allow any external media to chronicle the unimportant, uninteresting and irrelevant events that transpire within their work area.

Journalists exist to relay the news. Obviously, dramatic antics will pop up every now and again, but these scenarios exist in any working environment. The only important and noteworthy thing about a newspaper and its staff is the final product placed on the stands.

With this in mind, The Circuit staff forgot one of the most basic rules of our industry - we are not the story. Journalists don't exist to be the stars of a reality show; we exist to deliver strong, factual, entertaining and interesting news to our audience.

It's already difficult enough to be a doctor or lawyer with shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Law and Order." People develop a disillusioned view of these careers and expect every ER doctor to be sleeping with a nurse and every lawyer to have high profile murder cases.

Hopefully, the general audience for these shows can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, but it still warps the perceptions of these career fields. We begin to expect certain actions and events from doctors, nurses, police officers and even journalists. Because of this, industries that should be held in high respect are reduced to primetime soaps.

The unfortunate staff of The Circuit has entered itself into the worst genre of television possible, because everyone loses in a reality show.

Most of these journalistic-hopefuls screwed their careers in the very first episode. After their last issue under the "old" editor in chief, the staff celebrated with a house party that included a game involving ping-pong balls, red plastic cups and a mysterious unseen liquid. Two of the show's characters, Trevor Ballard and Giana Pacinelli, sneaked upstairs for some "alone" time.
Not to say high school students are required to be "innocent," but Web sites like Facebook and MySpace already cause future employees trouble. The first episode of this show is basically like "Minors Gone Wild."

True, these high school staffers could have been drinking water or sparkling cider. Trever and his girlfriend Giana could have just gone upstairs to talk or snuggle. But I doubt future employers will view their actions as such.

The second screw from this reality show comes in the form of character assassination.
Amanda is a self-righteous, obnoxious know-it-all who sends her staff into rage at the sound of her voice. She's about as well-equipped to lead a publication as a first-year med student is to perform heart surgery. Amanda may know the mechanics, but she lacks the grace to direct her nurses and the finesse to keep the patient alive.

The managing editor is anything but. Alex Angert is a sheepish, two-faced mediator between the big, bad editor and his unhappy peers. Instead of plotting to overthrow a leader who cannot be fired by the staff, he should be concentrating on assisting Amanda in making the newspaper the best possible publication. Although, with Amanda's obvious control issues, it's unlikely she'll actually let Alex do his job.

Trevor and Giana apparently didn't get enough "alone" time during the house party, because the only time you see either of them in the season preview, they are groping each other like bunnies in spring.

Adam Brock is a lot less striking than his name implies. The first time this overdramatic queen of advertising throws a tantrum in a real newsroom, he'll be fired. Being passed up for editor in chief is a major let down, but for Adam to drop to his knees and cry in agony, in the middle of a hallway surrounded by his coworkers extinguished any respect his peers had for him.

Scratch that; throwing papers down during production and yelling, "You don't see what they do, why can't you see what I see?" and storming out of the room in a huff of his own awesomeness looks to be the final nail in a coffin designated for Adam's professionalism.

If anything, Rhonda Weiss is the only victim in this poorly-acted melodrama. Rhonda, the adviser for The Circuit, plays the role of the overstressed mother-figure bent on pleasing everyone. Too bad her children are unruly and unappeasable, too caught up in their own ambitions, wants and needs to find a place of compromise, ethics and integrity.

These potential future pillars of the journalism industry have shamed the very job they wanted to immortalize. And worse, they have dragged their own good names through the mud, and a good name is one of the most prized processions a journalist can own.

To be fair, these high school students could be amazing people. They could be responsible, talented, journalistically attuned, career-ambitious individuals, but at the end of the season, none of those qualities matter. Because in the end, no newspaper wants to use a byline tattered with a mixture of mud and shame.

Andy Harper is a senior journalism major.

Posted: 4/21/08 on www.mtsusidelines.com

CHECK OUT GAWKER.COM FOR A RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE COLUMN!
http://gawker.com/382169/high-school-journalists-are-so-immature-says-college-journalist

Why hate responsible sex?

Last week, Trojan brand condoms started a new "evolve" campaign, which features a commercial of pigs in a bar trying to pick-up women, but to no avail.

Only when one of the pigs visits the restrooms and purchases a Trojan condom, does he transform into a good-looking, 20-something and is able to catch the eye of a cute, martini-sipping blonde.

The commercial is pure genius, metaphorically speaking. Any man without the sense to properly equip himself for a safe, happy and healthy sex life is nothing more than a sloppy, sexually irresponsible pig.

Trojan does not use their name, only their picture logo, and the commercial phrase that appears at the end of the one-minute slot reads, "Evolve. Use a condom every time."

Two major media corporations have refused to run this advertisement: Fox and CBS. The companies rejected the advertisement, although previous Trojan ads have appeared on both.

According to The New York Times, both CBS and Fox declined comment, however, both wrote letters to Trojan informing the condom manufacturer of the decision to decline running the ad and provided a vague explanation.

"While we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions," wrote CBS.

"Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy," wrote Fox.

Something to note about both television companies: both air ads promoting products for erectile dysfunction.

Wouldn't it be better to put the safety on the gun before loading the bullets? Rather, wouldn't it be better to ensure protection before target practice?

Proper condom use, first and foremost, should be the responsibility of a male. This is not to say women shouldn't know about proper condom usage, but women have other concerns.

A condom is one of the very few forms of "male" contraception: the basic principle being, 'roll it over and ride on in.' Women, however, have to deal with birth control, diaphragms and spermicide.

Men: when was the last time you had to inject yourself with a drug to alter the chemical balance of your body in order to have a safe, sexual experience? Taking responsibility for both the safety of yourself and your partner does not make a lesser man, but a better person.

It seems the real problem the broadcast companies have is the lack of metaphorical comprehension and the inability to look past men being portrayed "literally" as pigs.

In our society, music, movies and the Internet cater to a populous with a right-now, face-value attitude. So it makes perfect since that channels like CBS and Fox, which show graphic violence and strong sexual content, would stifle creative commercials which address the less pleasurable side of sexual health issues.

God forbid we consider using proper protection during a hot, steamy reality television show. Who has time for a condom? Not the drunk, horny teenagers.

Carol Carrozza, vice president of marketing for Ansell Healthcare, the company that produces LifeStyle condoms, was quoted in The New York Times article as saying, "We always find it funny that you can use sex to sell jewelry and cars, but you can't use sex to sell condoms."

The issue of disease prevention, as Fox pointed out, becomes null and void if the cause is not noted, the cause being unsafe sexual practices, which mean the necessity of referring to sex.

Anyone offended by references to sex in condom commercial are missing the point. A company wouldn't advertise an energy drink without referring to the wonderful things one could accomplish if consuming their product.

A condom commercial without sex is like an Allstate commercial without car accidents. Neither concentrates solely on the actions, rather both the Trojan and Allstate primary message is they can offer you a reasonable amount of insurance.

The New York Times article also contained research statistics by the Trojan company. Apparently, only one in four sexual acts involve a condom.

These results may or may not take into account other contraception usage or the nature of the sexual relationship. However, the old proverb still remains: it's better to be safe than sorry.

Of the statistic, Jim Daniels, vice president for marketing at Trojan, said, "That's dramatically below usage rates in other developed countries. Our goal is to dramatically increase usage."

With a 75 percent corner on the condom market, Trojan, with the new "Evolve" campaign, is more interested in increasing condom use than marketing their brand. While no one can deny that the company wants consumers using their product, it is still a notable noble effort on Trojan's part to safely equip society.

With that, Trojan deserves some well earned "cheers" for their new campaign.

Fox and CBS get the "jeers" for being close-minded and oppressive of an informative and entertaining ad.

Perhaps, one day, condoms and contraceptives will no longer be a topic of controversy, or at the least embarrassment. Maybe one day - when pigs fly.

Posted: 6/27/07 on www.mtsusidelines.com

Women should decide; men should support

"Well aren't you glad your mother didn't have an abortion?"

"I suppose, but it isn't like I would be complaining if she did."

The above dialogue was held between a die-hard "Pro-Lifer" and myself. An interesting fact about the speaker - it was a male.

In our democratic society, men and women are allowed and encouraged to use the right of free speech and religious beliefs without the fear of prosecution.

As intelligent individuals, we are allotted the abilities to form our own beliefs about subjects. The issue isn't about having an opinion, but rather forcing an opinion in a battle where the instigator only has a three-legged dog.

This is not a discussion on the "rights" and "wrongs" of abortion. Abortion is currently classified as a legal, medical procedure but is held as morally and ethically wrong by certain groups and persons.

The discussion is why is it acceptable, even viewed as correct, for a man to tell a woman how to manage her body? It's like taking a car to a mechanic and telling them how to fix the problem.

Reversing roles, would a man rather have a woman picket and protest in favor of required vasectomies or support his decision to have or not have a medical procedure performed?

The problem exists when men are the forefront of the "Pro-Life" movement. The fact remains that men are unable to conceive; therefore we are unable to properly empathize with a woman's reproductive biology.

Comparing social subjects, can a heterosexual person identify with the issues faced by the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender community? Absolutely not, because a heterosexual person does not feel discriminated against for their sexuality.

Can a straight person be a supporter and advocate for the GLBT community? Absolutely.

Again, it isn't about having opinions, but about recognizing one's place within a social issue. Men would do well to remember that it is a woman's body entangled within a complicated web of religion and politics.

Sadly for The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, this is not the case.

Of the seven directors for the CBR, four are men, including the executive director, the Midwest regional director, the southeast regional director and the northern California director.

I wonder when the last time any of them were pregnant and had to make a decision not just based on faith, but on what would be most beneficial to their physical well-being.

The only other argument to be made is in the case of a man voicing an opinion about his fetus. A man should have his opinion taken into serious consideration in the case of a fetus he helped produce.

The opinion, however, should remain just that. The decision rests entirely with the woman, unless science develops a miraculous way for men to bare children.

As a side note, the discussion of children and abortion in a consenting relationship between a man and a woman is a private matter. A relationship is private and, in theory, both partners respect each other's opinions enough to compromise their sexual lifestyle

However, this goes to the age-old argument of contraception. If the man wanted children, why isn't he with a woman who wants the same? If a man doesn't want children, why isn't he using protection? Accidents and unexpected circumstances arise, but for the most part prevention of children is tremendously easier in our modern day of medicine.

"You can have a rule-making opinion about abortion when you are able to experience morning sickness, swollen feet and breasts, aching back pain and the overwhelming responsibility of carrying a living creature within you for 10 months," sage advice that every mother should bestow on her son.

These are the bodies of women, the bodies of our mothers, sisters, aunts, friends and the only gender capable of perpetuating our species.

Men are not pro-life, nor pro-choice. Men should be pro-woman and support her decision, whatever it may be.

Posted: 9/17/07 on www.mtsusidelines.com

A time for beginnings

Now is the time for a beginning to this blog.

I'm not quite sure what to do first. It seems this will be an extension of my opinion writing and the column in the Middle Tennessee State University's newspaper Sidelines called "Yeah, Whatever."

To give a good idea of my soon to be plethora of readers (at least I hope), I've decided to post a few of the past columns I've done for the college paper.

They aren't my best, but it's a start. And like everything else, a beginning is in order.

Enjoy.