However this case does point to something askew in our culture: which citizens’ rights matter? Dietrich was almost jailed for divulging the names of her attackers (who were not shy about revealing their crime when showing the photos of the rape to friends shortly thereafter), however corporate citizen Facebook is allowed to spread all of its users’ information in a neat little profile to third parties. In fact, that’s what enables Facebook to be a corporation and, thus, and citizen.

Facebook attempts to ease its users’ minds by stating in the privacy terms that they “removed your name or any other personally identifying information from [your profile]” that they send to third parties. However the data in your personal Facebook graph includes all of your previous locations, IP addresses, birthdate, groups, and any information that your friends have shared about you. If a third party knows that I was born 9/22/1989, graduated from Goucher College in 2011, knows my computer’s identification number, and knows I belong to Women in Philosophy, then my name is pretty inconsequential.

My name is not the penultimate identifier of myself. All of my interests, friendships, photos, preferences, etc. culminate to make me. All of my information is “identifying information.” Because Facebook is a corporate person, with the right to life, it must be allowed to share my information. If I tell it no, I am damaging its health in a way.

The corporate person is allowed privileges that we of the flesh and bone could never get away with (just ask Jullian Assange). Yes, it is true that Savannah Dietrich shared identifying information about two boys who raped her  (Austin Zehender and Will Frey). But there is no reason why, if Facebook is allowed to operate on a business model of sharing almost all identifying information of its users with third parties to stay alive, that a rape survivor shouldn’t be allowed to divulge information that may help other women stay alive.

The conservatives have stumbled onto an interesting argument that they are, of course, probably for political reasons as well as a desire not to question the question, not going to make. Perhaps even better, this conservative objection to Obamacare throws the issue around the circle and into radical critique. People should not be forced to buy health insurance and, subsequently, should not be punished for refusal.

However not for the same-old surface reasons (here’s where the scales tip to the radical left). It is, for all intents and purposes all but illegal to die in the US. Euthanasia is illegal, suicide wishes are strictly not to be catered to, and now if you can afford not to die, you have no choice in the matter (unless you have thought ahead and signed a DNR). The blatant removal of the choice to die is perhaps the most basic removal of freedom. You must continue being. You must be treated. Go to the doctor. “I can’t afford it” is no longer an excuse. The government has an interest in keeping a large, growing, healthy population, and if you don’t want to be a part of it, it doesn’t matter. The government needs your healthy body to play in the biopolitical global field.

The argument that is separating the radical from the liberal is this: should we respect the individual’s right to die and right to choose, or should we assume that everyone will always choose life (and that those who wouldn’t need fixing) and as such ought to be able to afford healthcare? As I’ve stated, I feel very conflicted. But if the national dialogue shifted from taxes and affordability to quality of life, personal choice, and the ethics of death, I feel that conservatives, liberals, and radicals could finally hash out some fundamentally ideological issues and we could perhaps come one step closer to actually changing political power and mechanics. Obamacare is the perfect issue to use Heideggerian metaphysical critique to practical political benefit.

Because that’s what MTV’s PUSH does: it forces “the next big thing” into global pop culture. The latest decided icon is a 19-year-old self-proclaimed stud-muffin* named Conor Maynard. Conor Maynard is not yet the next big thing. But in this video, he makes sure you know he will be, so you’d better get used to the idea. I’m wildly tempted to launch into a tangent about how abhorrent not only his personal music is, but the entire genre of music he perpetuates, but I’ll restrain myself.

The real villan of this story is MTV. PUSH means that they have disposed of even attempting to hide their commercialization of music. No longer does MTV even pretend that they are in it for the music; in it to encourage and distribute the voices of a generation. Nope. Money. Just money. MTV will tell you what music you like. Not only what music you like, but which abysmal pop star you’ll be forced to live side-by-side with for the next musical season.

The relationship between music lovers and MTV (really the entire big music industry) is no longer reciprocal in any way once something like PUSH comes to be. MTV doesn’t need to find the thing that all the cool kids are listening to and popularize it. They tell the cool kids what they’ll be listening to a month from now. Anyone who has watched more than an hour of MTV in the last 5 years or so knows that they aren’t an avenue for well-composed music, smart lyrics, or anything besides the occasionally catchy, but PUSH has taken it too far. MTV is getting way to open about dictating my desires. And the saddest part is that most of us non-music executive folks end up buying in at some point. Ethics, MTV. Try out some ethics.

*Okay…that’s a lie. But he seriously implies it.

There is little question that Lyme disease is a fairly widespread issue in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (according the the CDC), however there is also no question that bifenthrin is classified as a class C carcinogen by the EPA. Additionally, the EPA lists the chemical as restricted due to its toxic effect on mammals and severely toxic effect on aquatic life. 

Wheeler reports that families may not have been thoroughly notified of bifenthrin’s potentially long-term side-effects. I would hazard a guess that this is because the short term side-effects (paresthesia, respiratory and nasal irritation, throat, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased oral secretions, ulcerations in the mouth, difficulty swallowing, headache, dizziness, and fatigue) are very short-term. 

Here we are, one year into the study, and reports show that while 62% fewer ticks reside in yards sprayed with bifenthrin, there has been virtually no change in the instances of tick bites and lyme disease. Wheeler writes: Federal and state health officials say that if after a second year and more analysis there’s no difference in tick bites or infection among the two groups, then they’ll advise the public that spraying yards with pesticide really doesn’t help prevent Lyme disease.

In science’s desire to completely control the forces of nature (disease, decay, rot), they are queued up to poison the population. The reason why Lyme disease is described as an issue in the first place is because it negatively impacts humans, lowering quality of life. Thus, as scientists, as those invested in investigating, understanding, replicating, controlling, and moving beyond nature, we must find a way to impose a solution. The solution to ticks: pesticide. Bifenthrin, as harmful as it can be to humans, is immensely more harmful to insects. So we spray it in the lawns of the uninformed, who volunteered for te $25 grocery gift card, knowing full well that the chemical comes with inherent risks.

If the ultimate motive behind this sort of scientific study was to ensure the safety and well-being of people, then the question of “should we attempt to use a class C carcinogen and highly toxic aquatic pollutant to reduce Lyme disease?” wouldn’t arise. The automatic assumption would be “no.” Science would invest in finding a better, safer method. Our health, longevity, and well-being cannot be the foremost concern when the solution is clearly detrimental to these things. The demand to demolish the Otherness of nature-of that outside of human creation or understanding-is the real motive behind these harmful chemical studies. 

The policy was drafted in response to the recent controversy surrounding Penn State’s Joe Paterno. Unfortunately, instead of finding a solution that would discourage pedophiles from being employed at Goucher, or encouraging community members to come forward when suspecting foul play by reducing bureaucracy, the college has only made it more difficult for parents to go about their days. Both students and staff have children at Goucher, and the child ban has made it more difficult to go to class and work.

Finding a babysitter last minute is hard enough, and putting a complicated process to find a Goucher babysitter who is available on demand is not helping. Perhaps a more useful solution is to institute a daycare, like dozens of colleges, universities, and technical institutions in this country. While the administration may be tempted to argue that Goucher is too small, and it would be too difficult to staff, institutions such as Bard College, Hampshire College, and Marlboro College-all comprable in size-have on campus daycare programs. In fact, on campus daycare would even create Federal Work Study jobs, which is often a goal of the college.

In its reactionary hurry to create a policy, Goucher College has further alienated students and staff members with children. While it can be distracting for children to be in the classroom (although, in my experience, this is mostly untrue), it is disgraceful to say, as Sandy Ungar, President of Goucher, has in a recent email to students, “Goucher College will always be a family-friendly environment,” and then make it more difficult for Goucher’s community members to find babysitting solutions. The “Child Protection Policy”, without being coupled with on-campus daycare, is nothing but a slap in the face for students and staff who are also parents.

The ultrasound bill has already passed in Virginia, and Alabama is gearing up to be next in line. The bill requires all women seeking an abortion to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound first. The ultrasound image would be within sight of the pregnant woman, although Republicans have stopped short at forcing her eyelids open to look at it. However, in Alabama, the doctor will have to describe the image in as much detail as possible to the woman if she refuses to look.

Reed is adamant that his company, Preferred Medical Systems, would in no way profit from the sudden increase in demand for the special ultrasound equipment required to perform transvaginal ultrasounds. As of right now, Preferred Medical Systems does not sell to clinics that provide abortion services.

But can we really believe that this will remain his company’s policy after this bill becomes a law? The ultrasound will be used as a preventative measure against abortion (somehow invasive ultrasounds are better at stopping abortion than cheap contraception. Who know?), since Republicans are hoping that women faced with the humanoid shape of a fetus will be guilted into abandoning the procedure. That sounds like a mighty big loophole for Reed’s company to change its tune about selling equipment to abortion clinics. With the increased demand for the specific ultrasound wands that his company sells, it seems likely that Preferred Medical Systems will (reluctantly, I’m sure) give into demand in the name of all of those soon to be miserably born children.

A Senator who stands to profit from the ultrasound bill ought not vote on it. If you agree, drop Sen. Reed a line:

Greg Reed
800 Highway 78 East, Suite 200, #106
Jasper, AL 35501
Phone number: (205) 295-1523
Email: greg@preferredmedicalsystems.com

The GOP’s outcry over Obama’s recent proposal that all employers provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception is not solely based on some mythical attack on religious freedoms. It comes from the GOP’s deep entrenchment in capitalism and desire for a corporate state (as most recently seen in Mitt Romney’s unwavering insistence that corporations are people and their rights are top priority).

In order to continue the push for a bigger and wealthier international economy, the American capitalists need an ever-increasing workforce. For the labor force to always increase, all women must be encouraged to reproduce at a young age, particularly since the younger she begins reproducing, the more workers she can bring into the world.

Not only does the State require workers, but it also demands sheer population to maintain a strong global position. A country seeking to become-or maintain its position as-a Superpower must have a population that can contend with that of other nations. Step one of this competition is merely the creation of more bodies. Women then must always be able to reproduce. Not only must contraception be beyond their grasp, but they must be confined to the home, heterosexually married, and without the option of abortion. Women’s reproduction-particularly for the GOP-all boils down to money and power. Leave your personhood at the door.

It is a shame, however, that Stewart flubbed the first presenting of the Occupy Wall Street event so dramatically, thus placing himself in a reactionary position. While the Daily Show primarily comments on the hypocrisy of both political figures and political media rather than generating news, it had the chance to be the program the defined how Occupy Wall Street was covered by the press. Had Stewart presented the protest when it was in an earlier stage-during the media black out-the Daily Show would have been the news source that defined in some way how the protest was to be portrayed and what the media’s focus would be.

While the program has certainly portrayed Occupy Wall Street in a more favorable light, it is now catching up to the rest of the media. The comments made on October 5th were in response to previous comments and to the way others have decided to portray the movement rather than pioneering and establishing The Daily Show’s own opinion. I would never say that I want The Daily Show to stop reacting and demonstrating the immense hypocrisy of the Fox News Network, but I do lament the fact that it has missed the opportunity to seriously assist or impact the public’s understanding of the protest. While I understand that it is not in the nature of opinion news shows to generate news, I feel that, as more and more college-aged individuals turn to The Daily Show as a source of news, it would be nothing but beneficial for Stewart and his team to try their hands at agenda setting. Occupy Wall Street would have been a great place to start.

The rationale that people gave was the following: we would benefit from the element of surprise and the reporter might narc on us. The first objection is invalid because of the very thing that was chanted at the meeting: We are the 99%! That means everybody who suffers from corporate greed and does not benefit from governmental favoritism. This reporter would be a valuable member of our assembly, because she can help spread word to the 99% who didn’t attend the planning meeting and who still don’t know anything about Occupy Baltimore. The element of surprise would leave those unknowing in a continued state of unknowing. The movement relies heavily on magnitude. Having an article in the Baltimore Sun-even a negative article-would attract people to our event.

The second objection is equally as absurd, particularly because earlier in the meeting, a participant stated that there may be cops in the audience, then went on to welcome their presence, which garnered the approval of the audience. How can we welcome police (which we most certainly ought to) and then remove a journalist for potentially alerting them? The location is posted on the internet. The time is posted on the internet. The entire plan is posted on the internet. An article in the Sun isn’t going to tip anyone off, it’s going to encourage everyone to participate.

How can this movement be about (even if only in part) governmental transparency if we are unwilling to show the world our process? How is this movement able to claim absolute inclusion of the disenfranchised if we ask some to leave? And didn’t Occupy Wall Street fight for weeks to gain mainstream media attention? Yet when the Baltimore Sun is willing to cover our efforts before police brutality and in the absence of police brutality, we kick them to the curb, disrespectfully and ungratefully. This action has been a grievous error, and I hope the assembly works hard to correct it in the near future.

Stewart, like most of the American media, focused only on the pepper spraying of protesters by officer Tony Bologna. Stewart shows both videos of Bologna spraying protestors, then walking away. He then condemns Bologna (and, you know, mocks his ridiculous name) before showing a strange clip of a non-existant drama based on the life of Bologna. But during the first 2.5 minutes of Stewart’s report on the occupation, he subtly beraided the group for its lack of a coherent message. He has missed the point. He acknowledged that each person is standing up for something different, but finds this fact to be absurd. He also fails to address why the protest had to be on Wall Street.

Instead of extrapolating from the location and perhaps watching a couple of video clips where protestors were interviewed and drawing meaning from their, he made fun of the drums, disregarded the method, and focused on Michael Moore (and, really, he is super not the main point of this whole thing). I’m surprised and disappointed that Stewart is not more sympathetic or interested in the events on Wall Street.