Morning Update

Ouch, my calves hurt. Walking is such a fun challenge. After Sunday’s activities, my body didn’t especially appreciate having to move yesterday. I kept my activity to a minimum, edited some pictures that I may take down later, took the dogs outside as necessary, and did frozen pizza for dinner. The kids were happy and I didn’t risk straining anything. Today may be similar. the forecast shows a 100% chance of rain and if we end up getting some of the system that spawned tornadoes in Oklahoma last night (it will likely go south of us) then getting out of bed may be a struggle.

G has been given a chance to spend a week at Purdue this summer, earning both college and high school credit. Being a PPHS student allows him to attend for free. I’m excited for him to go not only because of the program but for the opportunity to experience a taste of dorm life and eating on a meal plan. Think back to your own college experience: how many kids bailed out quickly because they couldn’t adjust to campus life, being away from home, having to make basic decisions for themselves, and being responsible about meals? We’ve not been able to give him long overnight camp experiences. This is a chance for him to test his mettle without us being there looking over his shoulder.

Tipper, on the other hand, is bailing on her class’s trip to Chicago this weekend. The annual 8th-grade trip is supposed to be a reward for all their hard work, but Tipper only sees it as a long bus ride with a lot of people she doesn’t like. Of course, we’re not forcing her to go, but her lack of positive social interaction bothers me.

A pop-up notification from the National Weather Service just informed me that this afternoon’s storms could be severe, with high winds and possibly hail. Afternoon. When the kids are on buses. How do I not worry about that?

In reading an article this morning about re-drawing political district lines in Louisiana, I see that white voters are claiming that having districts favoring African Americans offends their (the white people’s) “personal dignity.” Okay, if you really want to start that fight, let’s go for it.

According to Deleware Law School, which seems to have the most concise and least confusing definition, personal dignity is defined as “the equal, inherent, and inalienable value of every person. It touches every important aspect of the human experience, from sexual and gender identity, to citizenship, equality and privacy, education and employment, healthcare, and more.” Okay, pretty straightforward. Sort of.

The International Journal of Constitutional Law, [Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 March 2012] makes the argument that “in spite of widespread international agreement on the importance of the principle, there is a significant degree of confusion regarding what it demands of lawmakers and adjudicators, and considerable inconsistency in its formulation and application in domestic constitutional law.” The author argues that “there is little or no consensus as to what the concept of human dignity demands of lawmakers and adjudicators. Indeed, for all the importance and emphasis placed on human dignity in the text of international conventions, domestic constitutions, and court decisions, the elusive nature of the concept has led many commentators to argue that it is, at best, meaningless or unhelpful, and at worst, potentially damaging to the protection of fundamental human rights.”

Most of the argument comes down to how loosely courts and legislators have played with the term, resulting in it having no practical meaning at all. Is “dignity” a right or is it a characteristic of something else?

Here’s my take: if “personal dignity” is a right that is defensible under the Constitution, then:

• The uninvited presence of the descendants of European invaders on native lands offends my personal dignity and I demand they be removed.
• The absence of a national healthcare program that resolves the medical needs of all citizens in an efficient and medically superior fashion offends my personal dignity and I demand one be put in place.
• The presence of gerrymandered voting districts offends my personal dignity and I demand that non-gerrymandered maps be put in place across all 50 states.
• The willfully malicious destruction of life by any government offends my personal dignity and I demand that they be tried and held accountable for their actions.
• The failure to sufficiently guard the personal, mental, emotional, and financial safety of all persons regardless of sex, gender, nationality, or ideology offends my personal dignity and I demand that such be considered in the actions of all governments in any decision.

I could go on with that list for a long time but you’d stop reading before getting into the more detailed elements. The issue is “the relative looseness with which the term has been used by drafters, judges, and academics, as a consequence of which domestic constitutional law frequently defines “dignity” in a manner that cannot be reconciled with international human rights law.” [ibid.] We need a tighter definition that prevents courts and legislators from watering it down to the point it doesn’t exist. Until that happens, until we stand up for all human rights (which the US has yet to do), then none of us can claim any right to personal dignity. Attempting to do so only puts us at odds, possibly in violation of everyone else’s personal dignity.

If you disagree, feel free to present a reasonable and intelligent argument in the comments below.

The sad fact is that we only want rights and freedoms for people who look, act, and think like we do. We don’t understand universal freedom because we’re afraid of it, afraid that it might change the way we live, who controls the power, and how we might dominate those around us. To claim that allowing people of color to vote in a district designed to represent them violates your rights is racist and empty. You have zero right to deny someone else adequate representation in Congress or anywhere else.

I’m loudly in favor of breaking up the “good old boys club.” I’m unapologetically in favor of removing the influence of any religion from government. We need to re-think the whole mess in terms of global human rights because the movement of people across national borders, the ability to access and influence information without nationalistic or religious barriers, warrants that we protect the rights not only of those who live within our borders, but everyone who may, whether physically or digitally, visit our lands, our thoughts, our art, our education, or any other readily accessible portion of our existence. You can take your offense and shove it up your ass.

Meanwhile, I’m going to have leftover pizza for breakfast.