43) Marquis de Sade

With every dark time in humanity, there is always a darker person willing to push the limits on societal evil. Whether it is mass murder, the invention of more devious torture devices, or the easier violation of ethics, someone in every century is there to break bounds.

Of course, there are the majority who call these people heretics, while the solemn few are brave enough to call these people heroes, pioneers of their time.

People call the Marquis de Sade a genius, only because he was the most innovative sexual deviant of his time. Unrestrained by religion, law, or morality, his collective thirty-two years in insane asylums can attest to the fact that his 120 Days of Sodom is still widely unparalleled in terms of brutality and violence.

The lasting legacy of the Marquis? We derive the word "sadism" from his name.

But whether you're the biggest pervert of the eighteenth century, or just a small time Issei Sagawa, the barriers of evil continue to be broken.

Just early today before this post, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad for his crimes on 12:20:25 a.m. MDT. Many believe death by firing squad falls under the cruel and unusual punishments clause in the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution.

The worst part? Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff advertised the death with updates on Twitter, stating when he gave the order to kill and where to watch his live press conference afterward. As Mashable puts it: "A Tweet Too Far?"

But the real focus of this post, the real shocker, lies in a pediatric urologist at Cornell: Dix Poppas. He "specializes" in female genital cutting.

The original post at the bioethics forum starts off by introducing a comparative story: Tuskegee airmen who did not receive medication for their syphilis for four decades. This is to emphasize the dehumanizing, scientized language of modern medicine of what Martha Solomon says: “can obscure and deemphasize any ethical, non-scientific perspective.”

But back to Poppas. What exactly does he do? First of all, he operates on little girls. Girls that are no older than six years old. He cuts their "oversized" clitorises, then stitches up the glans for the purpose of "nerve sparing." It's for sensitivity issues.

Alice Dreger and Ellen K. Feder from the original article elaborates:

Here more specifically is, apparently, what is happening: At annual visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch. Yang, Felsen, and Poppas also report a “capillary perfusion testing,” which means a physician or nurse pushes a finger nail on the girl’s clitoris to see if the blood goes away and comes back, a sign of healthy tissue. Poppas has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to conduct annual exams with these girls. He intends to chart the development of their sexual sensation over time.

And as if that wasn't enough:

Many have told us that the genital displays involved in the follow-up exams were more traumatic than any other part of the experience. Indeed, when I once asked a group of women with androgen insensitivity syndrome what they wanted me to work on primarily in my advocacy work, they said stopping the exams, particularly those in which med students, residents, and fellows parade through to check out the surgeon's handiwork.

So not only does the dear doctor get away with it, he also lets other people watch. Might as well start cutting off every male penis and stitch up those results.

All in the name of science? Perhaps, but it's clear that Poppas does not understand the damage he's doing to these girls. Is it some sick sexual perversion he possess? I don't know.

Just remember that when you sleep tonight, someone, somewhere, is eager to prove humanity's inner evil.

42) Home of the Brave

Writing your congressman/senator or appearing at town hall meetings is a political exercise many young students go through to understand the American democratic process. It is the point of inspiration for many aspiring students that wish to succeed in government someday.

However, the public and the media often forget that these figureheads of government are still human. We hold these idols to a high expectation of leadership and heroism, destined to make change for the better.

We understand the high profile world that these representatives are embroiled in. We see stories of their sexual escapades, their sudden lapses of intelligence, or their public outbursts of politically incorrect statements.

The media that paints this image always exposes the drama that runs through their lives. Most recently, CBS scored a hit with their series The Good Wife, which explores a lawyer's tumultuous life after her husband's political career goes awry with infidelity.

Everywhere you go, there's always someone who loves to expose the government and its puppets for what they really are: manipulative control freaks who are irreparably corrupted and ethically ignorant in the name of representation and control.

So when some students catch a congressman at a bad time and film him, there are bound to be interesting results:

(Alternate link if the above doesn't work for you)

It's a hot debate as to who's right or wrong here, even though it's obvious that the students can play the harassment card.

I call it a debate for several reasons:

1) The senator will issue a public apology and get away with it. There is a 0.0001% that he will resign as a result of this video.

2) The students will lose a harassment lawsuit against the congressman, should they choose to file one.

3) Public exposure to the video will be minimal at best.

My thoughts?

I've always been a fan of the theory that the American government is always decades behind the societal changes that occur in the United States and in the world. This is why it took so long to elect an African American president, or why the ethnic minorities in Congress are grossly unrepresentative of the public at large.

It allows this hypothesis to be drawn: The ruled and the rulers are separate entities that shall never coexist peacefully.

While Washington D.C. is steeped in centuries old tradition of cutthroat politics, the public is utilizing technology to share ideas on how they want things to be done.

It's the friction between the two halves of this America that make the system a miraculous display of continuous function for fear of anarchy.

As we delve into tougher times, more personal sacrifices are required to keep the American machine running. This requires the superhuman strength that we expect from the politicians that hit students on the streets. It's time for the media myths of leadership to take fruition.

All the while, the public can continue to lose themselves in watching another season of reality shows and Youtube memes, oblivious to the problems that they don't have to deal with. Leave it to the politicians, they say.

Who knows? Maybe America has earned its dishonorable death.

1) Get OFF my lawn!

After reading On Killing by Lt. Col Dave Grossman (required reading for the FBI academy mind you), I seem to have begun thinking about Death and its role in the modern United States society and perhaps the societies of most other countries in the world. In a nutshell, On Killing explains about how the military has indoctrinated soldiers and the current generation of young to become desensitized to death and violence.

The presence of violence in general media is not a new concept. However, it seems the few that do object to this gain absolutely no support from the general public. It has begun to become more widespread and common. The recent cases of video game "inspired" crimes seem to be one of the most memorable examples in the past years.

Back fifty years ago, this was not an issue. However, the origins were apparent. To quote Grossman: "In World War 2, only 15 to 20 of combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles...In Vietnam this figure rose to 90 percent". In a span of just a few decades, what transpired?

I'd like to use the career of Clint Eastwood, one of my favorite actors, as an example. In one of his well known movies The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1967), Eastwood plays "Blondie" (The good), who outguns some bandits to turn "Tuco" (The Bad) to a local town for some reward money. It is not until later we find out that Blondie comes up to free Tuco at his execution, and the two split the money. The implied message? You can be outside the law and still be a "good guy".

In Dirty Harry (1971), Eastwood plays Harry Callahan, a SFPD inspector who is willing to go above the law to capture "Scorpio", the deranged murderer of San Francisco. Harry pursues
Scorpio, fueled by a murderous rage and hate that could rival that of his target. After torturing Scorpio and cornering him, Harry does not arrest Scorpio, but shoots him dead in the chest, while throwing away his badge. The implied message? You are above the law as long as the bad guy goes down.

In his more recent film, Gran Turino (2008), Eastwood is grizzled Korean War vet Walt Kowaski, who has to deal with the local Hmong gang that threatens the lives of both him and his neighbors. In one scene, he raises his M1 Garand at the gangsters on his yard, and growls "Get OFF my lawn". The implied message? Superior firepower is a great deterrent.

So some wonder how our society has grown more violent. I simply ask: What are you going to do about it?