Are we just consumers? Or are we citizens?

What's a human being's life worth to you? A million dollars? Two millions dollars? Can you put a price on life?

Some people have tried. The attorney general selected Kenneth Feinberg to run the federal fund set up to compensate the families of those killed or physically injured in the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- a task that definitely requires determining the value of a human life in dollars. But is your iPhone worth someone's life?

Apple seems to think so. Or maybe it was Steve Jobs. In the last year, four of the company's workers in China have been killed due to preventable and foreseeable causes. That's not including the ones who committed suicide.

To me, no phone or computer or iPod is worth someone's life -- no matter how cool it is. Just imagine that that Chinese worker was your mom or your sister or your uncle. You'd send that iPhone back if that were the case.

Apple has an obligation to its customers, and it's much bigger than just selling them really cool but really overpriced electronic devices. It has an obligation to its customers' values. Those horrible factory conditions would never fly here in the good ole U.S. of A. We wouldn't stand for it. So why does Apple think it's okay to do that on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?

Apple's obligation right now seems to be to pad its pocketbook at whatever cost. But it should think twice and think hard about how the company can remedy that image. Because until then, I'm not buying a thing from Apple, and you shouldn't either. Let's show them that we're not consumers -- we're citizens. We're citizens of a free, democratic country in which people can live and work and pursue their own ideas of happiness without repercussions or unnecessary suffering.

At least, that's what I thought it was.

Kony kids

There has been a lot of talk over the past week about Joseph Kony, Invisible Children and what exactly we should do about the situation. The Kony 2012 video released by Invisible Children last week spurred much of the discussion and bouts of activism, but many were skeptical of the nonprofit organization's methods. Some said that Invisible Children manipulated the facts to sway their almost entirely American audience. But I think there is a bigger question here.

What about our children?

Nearly 300,000 children in the United States were at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes in 2009, according to a University of Pennsylvania study, "most of them runaways or thrown-aways," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Then if you factor in homeless children and foster children who are not being taken care of properly, and you have an epidemic on your hands. The truth is that children are vulnerable, and evil people take advantage of the vulnerable in order to further their own agendas. And sadly, that is nothing new. Joseph Kony has been terrorizing villagers of central Africa for nearly 20 years. So what's all the hype about right now?

There are plenty of children in America that need our help, but no one has made a YouTube video calling attention to their plight (well, not yet anyway). What will it take for Americans to fix their own problems?

Behind the veil

It's always something.

Every week if not every day, there is another story out about the Republican party's opposition to improved legislation for women. Today, the conservatives in congress are trying to fight the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 legislation that was largely bipartisan once upon a time. And now Republicans are claiming that the bill is too broad and unnecessarily expands immigration. It seems like they would oppose just about anything that remotely promotes women's rights for any reason at all.

But if those members of congress would just take a moment and step behind the veil of ignorance before they consider whether they should support this legislation or any other, they would realize why it is so important to have such laws in place. If they knew that they could be that battered Mexican (but illegal) immigrant who was taken advantage of by the people who helped her into this country, and she was only trying to escape situations such as these anyway when she came here, then they would not hesitate to pass this bill because it is not strict enough for their tastes. They would stamp that sucker faster than you could say "feminism."

The Republicans have every right to their opinions and to voice them vociferously so. But they should stop and think about why they really have a problem with legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, and they should ask themselves what they would want if they were the women who were being beaten and abused by the men in their lives. Compromise is possible and necessary, but it takes cooperation on both sides.

Greed is good?

I saw that Michael Douglas graced the front page of the Wall Street Journal one day this past week. The WSJ placed a picture of Douglas' character from "Wall Street," Gordon Gekko, side by side with a recent picture of the actor. Under the picture in the cutline, Douglas advises those aware of insider trading to report it to the FBI -- part of a public service announcement targeting financial fraud. Apparently, greed ain't so great.

Bank CEOs in the United States would probably object to that statement. Reuters reported: "The United States is home to four of the nine largest banks in the world -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc. It is also home to four of the six most handsomely rewarded bank CEOs." They got it made.

And though this may be quite a leap, I don't think distributive justice really has a place in a capitalist society -- or at least in our society. Think about it: Greed is rewarded. You're only as successful as your latest income statement in many people's eyes. And it's not a result of how hard you work either. If you're born into a poor family and spend your adolescence just trying to make it to tomorrow, you don't really make plans for college or concentrate on maintaining good credit -- two things pretty necessary for a "successful" life. When you get to adulthood and have to find a place to live and a job and health insurance, you're shit out of luck. And no one holds out a hand to help you. You're just condemned and dismissed because you simply did not work hard enough. Where is the justice in that? 

From Reuters: "You wouldn't know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world's largest bank. Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That's less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co."

There's just something wrong with that picture. 

Justice is not just about money though. For me, distributive justice means equal opportunity for all. Equal access to education and welfare assistance and health care would go a long way to creating a more egalitarian society. Maybe we could take some of Dimon's salary and give it to all of the homeless veterans I see wandering the streets of Fort Worth with their hiking packs and their dogs and their eyes that have seen too much. Maybe that would balance things out a bit.

Drugs, mugs and the press bug

TCU is starting to look a little like Penn State with that egg on its face.

Of course, the chancellor and other university officials did a much cleaner job of handling the news of students' drug-dealing crimes than Penn State officials did with the child abuse accusations. But I think what we really have to ask ourselves is: Why?

Yes, I'm glad they did not attempt to cover this up. I'm glad they released well-rehearsed statements, and I'm glad they spoke with the media. But I am confused why this on-campus incident got more attention than student suicides and sexual assaults in the past. The drug dealing that was done was relatively small and inconsequential. It was a victimless situation.

Why is this case so important? Is it because four football players were involved? Is it because many members of the football team supposedly failed their surprise drug tests on Feb. 1? Does this really all boil down to sports? Again?

I guess all I have are questions. I mean, a prayer vigil? Really? For a drug bust? Where was the dang prayer vigil for Mackenzie Workman who committed suicide last month?

I don't know, but I'm sure the answers are just as depressingly simple and mundane as the questions themselves.

It's about power.

Don't get it mixed: Politics are about power.

The conservatives want to keep it. The liberals want to spread it around, and those in the middle are just trying to make it to tomorrow. They just want to get their kids to school and dinner on the table. Some of them want to go to college. Some of them want to work, and some of them don't. But we all want to be free.

And it just seems to me that some people want to keep all of the power to themselves -- that they want to secure every freedom for themselves, even if it means snatching it away from someone else, someone less fortunate. That is what the Republicans are attempting to do by stigmatizing Planned Parenthood, abortion, contraception and women's health in general. Why else would anyone not think that everyone has a right to his or her own body?

I read an article on the Mother Jones website about a woman who sought out an abortion before Roe v. Wade, and her story was horrible. It was almost unbearable to read because things could easily be that bad again if the Republican party gets its way -- if it really ruins the good work that places like Planned Parenthood accomplish. And with organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation taking sides in a fight fraught with hostile contenders, it feels quite possible that things will not be good anytime soon.

Not with battles over who should have access to contraception raging right now. Not with laws requiring doctors to force a woman to hear a baby's heartbeat before receiving an abortion. Not with people taking sides on an issue that should be important to everyone, regardless of your sex or class or political party. Everyone has a right to his or her body. That's the only power we really have.

And on that note, some lyrics from one of my favorite musicians Ani DiFranco:

wouldn’t it be nice if we had an amendment
to give civil rights to women
to once and for all just really lay it down
from the point of view of women

i know what you’re thinking
that’s just redundant
chicks got it good now
they can almost be president
but it’s worker against worker
time and time again
cuz the rich use certain issues as a tool
and when i say we need the ERA
it ain’t cuz i’m a fool
it’s cuz without it
nobody can get away with anything cool

and you don’t have to go far
like just over to canada
to feel a heightened sense of live and let live
what is it about americans
like so many pit bulls
trained to attack and to never give

we gotta put down abortion
put it down in the books for good
as central to the civil rights of women
make diversity legal
make it finally understood
through the civil rights of women

and if you don’t like abortion
don’t have an abortion!
and teach your children
how they can avoid them
but don’t treat all women
like they are your children
compassion has many faces, many names
and if men can kill
and be decorated instead of blamed
then a woman called upon to mother
can choose to refrain

contrary to eons of old-time religion
your body is your only true dominion
nature is not here to serve you
(or at any cost to preserve you)
that’s just some preacher man’s
old-time opinion

life is sacred
life is also profane
a woman’s life must be hers to name
let an amendment put this brutal game to rest

trust 
women will still take you to their breast
trust
women will always do their best
trust
our differences make us stronger not less

-"Amendment" by Ani D. (2012)

let's talk about sex, baby.

That's right. It's time to talk about sex. Or contraception, rather.

I read an article in The New York Times on Monday that discussed one of the important implications of the new health care law: contraception. The new law requires insurance plans to cover birth control without co-payments for employees. Some institutions are opposed to such policy because of their religious beliefs, including houses of worship, but the Obama administration ruled this month that there would be an exception for religious employers. However, the article said, "a religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do." Many Catholic colleges strongly oppose this ruling and are resisting it, outraged that a policy would force them to go against their beliefs and "finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."

Now, I'm no Catholic. I'm not even remotely religious. So, it's kind of hard for me to understand why members of an organized religion would feel the need to regulate their employees' access to contraception. Yes, it may not adhere to good Catholic rules, but the choice to abide by such rules is a personal one. It must be left to the individual to decide if she or he wants to abide by Catholic teachings (or any other religion).

If these bishops and nuns, politicians and pundits would just take a step back and think about the people -- the women -- that this ruling affects and imagine what it would be like to be someone else for a change, then they just might understand how important it is that this law is implemented and enforced. That's the idea behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" in his theory of justice as fairness. People would not make judgments based on their standing in society because they would be behind the "veil" and ignorant of all "knowledge of particular facts about themselves, about one another, and even about their society and its history," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They would not know their social status or class position. They would not know how much money they have or how intelligent they are. They would not know their age or gender. Rawls says that they would not even be aware of "their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

Those who oppose the contraception coverage requirement or any other part of the new health care law would think thrice if they stood behind a veil of ignorance. They might make different decisions if they did not know their age or sex or social status. They might want every woman to have access to birth control because they just might be that woman who needs it. They might want socialized medicine because they may be that homeless person who has hit hard luck upon hard luck.

Who knows? We might all make different, better and more compassionate choices if we did not have that cushion of whatever it may be -- white, wealthy, male, American, Christian, attractive, etc. Because we could all very well be someone else.