Aaron M. Watkins

Freelance Report Writer & Article Writer

Location:Pittsboro, North Carolina, United States
2 Skills
I am a graduate of UALR with a B.A. major in Philosophy with an emphasis in writing, minor in Sociology also with an emphasis in writing. I consider myself a full time writer. I received my start writing a weekly column on a volunteer basis for the Arkansas Coalition for Peace and Justice. I am just 28 years old and continuing with school but write full time, as writing is my career objective.
The following writing samples will serve as my current resume. These are only a fraction of the volumes of work i have produced and some are just excerpts. These samples are only meant to exhibit my writing abilities and writing styles. The writings are chronologically ordered with the oldest being first and so forth, so naturally the style will change as time moves forward and i get older. They will include ACPJ columns (based on news articles), committee outlines (America's Dialog), short stories, philosophical treatise, and some poetry. The committee outlines and ACPJ columns, specifically, are evidence of the time and research i put into my work. Although the ACPJ columns are mostly opinion pieces, they contain facts cited from researchable sources.


(from ACPJ column)

On An Organic Social Construct in a Technological Civilization
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins, 2006

(Note from the writer Aaron M. Watkins, 2011: This column was written in 2006, when social media on the internet was in its infancy. Since this time, organizations of all types use online social media as the standard for reaching a wider audience. At the time that I wrote this piece i could see the role that social media on the internet was going to play in news, politics, art, etc., at least two years before it began doing so.)

As we are all well aware, the age in which we live requires that each and every citizen be an informed citizen, and dare I say a proactive citizen. The shady policies and actions of the American government created the environment under which organizations such as the Arkansas Coalition for Peace and Justice (ACPJ) were formed. The creation of such an organization is the indicator that there is a core group of concerned citizens who choose to remain informed, proactive, and involved in the future of our country. As such a citizen, I, Aaron M. Watkins, born during the Reagan-era, and having come of age under an environment reminiscent of a dictatorship with the noose of citizen slavery ever tightening around the throat of America, have come to the understanding that it is up to us, the citizens, to keep in check the powers that be. If left to its own devices, the current administration would undoubtedly evolve into a totalitarian regime, whereby the citizens of this country would be stripped of every freedom and liberty set forth by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in fact has become so irrelevant in the minds of the Bush administration that George W. Bush actually referred to it (the basis of every American freedom, mind you) as “a ******* piece of paper”. This is the mindset under which the current leaders of this country conduct the affairs that determine the fate of the world. It goes without saying that the Founding Fathers of this country would defend to the death the ideology of the current administration. The extraordinary men who founded this country risked their own freedoms and in fact their very lives for the ideals contained within the Constitution, and would surely take exception to its reference as “a ******* piece of paper”.

As an informed, proactive human being, it is with an obligatory attitude that I pursue educating the public at large; and I encourage others to do the same. However, I look upon the social landscape of America, wondering how we have gotten to such a point that nobody seems to care about what is happening, or what will happen if the current course remains. With the American community eroding (or at least evolving) it is important for the proactive citizen to retain personable communication to an ever-increasingly isolated public so that the informed maintain a dialogue with the not-so-informed. When I say an isolated public I don’t necessarily mean isolated from the goings on of society. Today’s technology allows for anyone (save they be willing) to know about any event happening anywhere in the world at any time. The problem is that not every avenue of obtaining information contains objective reporting, with informing the public of the truth as its number one priority. When the priority of a media entity becomes profit over accurate information, anything coming from that source becomes tainted with profit prioritized propaganda. Ideally, each and every citizen should care whether they were being indoctrinated with truth, and would take the necessary steps to wade through the murk of misinformation using the ever-expanding technologies at our disposal as a tool for the gathering of information. However, the trade off that inevitably occurs with increased access to, and use of technology seems to be the loss of an organic social construct that has historically been necessary for the creation and implementation of a social movement. With this in mind, we need to approach our mission creatively, remaining aware of the fact that the social landscape of America is ever-evolving into a condition of what has been dubbed by Polish-British sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, “liquid modernity”. Bauman defines liquid modernity as “the condition of a society that lacks a clear sense of orientation”; almost exactly defining American society as it exists today. While technology has played a major role in alienating people from one another, and in the evolution of liquid modernity, it can paradoxically be the very tool by which American society can re-solidify, and regain a sense of direction and collective orientation. Hypothetically, what peace organizations can do is to use this technology to partner with alternative media sources and social networks, cementing a relationship between the proactive citizen, its respective peace organization, alternative media sources, and other proactive citizens, thereby creating an organic social construct with clearly defined goals, containing built-in alternative media sources necessary for an organic society to remained accurately informed. Let us imagine for a moment how such an idea would work. The peace organization would be the center of the network, defining goals, connecting people, staging events, etc. Next, imagine a social network whereby each person is responsible for maintaining a dialogue with five different people in the network. Each person would maintain daily contact with their respective five people, sharing everything from new ideas to daily news. If structured like this, information would reach every person in the social network within one day organically. What I mean by organically is that the information would be passed along person to person, and not by automated means. This is the key to its sustainability.

(from ACPJ column)

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill H.R. 810 Behind Weak Argument
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins

President George W. Bush announced yesterday that he was to veto a bill allocating federal funds for stem cell research. This being the third bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate that Bush has vetoed, it comes a year after an almost identical bill was considered.

The Senate just barely lacks the two thirds majority to contest Bush's veto, but the House is well under the two thirds majority meaning the veto is not likely to be overridden.

As usual, Bush makes little to no sense when citing his reasons behind the veto. In a message to the House of Representatives, released yesterday (June 19, 2007) on the White House's website, Bush writes, "Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed."

Under the bills proposal, the embryos that would be used for research would already be in line to be destroyed, and merely using the cells after the embryo had been destroyed does nothing to "preserve human life and dignity" as Bush claims.

Bush argues that stem cell research promotes the destruction of human life (the embryo), ignoring the fact that the embryos that would be used for research are going to be destroyed anyway. It makes the most sense to make further use of embryos destined for destruction, as current research shows that stem cells could be vital in treating a wide range of serious, life threatening ailments.

In fact, stem cell research would allow for the preservation of human life and dignity that Bush claims he is preserving with his veto of the bill. Allowing for the advancement in medial care that stem cell research would certainly lead to, would without a doubt, improve the quality of life for ailing human beings, and ease the minds of those at risk for such ailments that could be treated or cured through stem cell research.

The sensitivity of this subject is understandable, as it tends to foster moral questions, but the benefits of such research would far out weigh any issues with morality. It is indeed with a notion of morality that such research ought to be pursued. Saving lives and improving human existence is a notion of compassion in tune with morality.

Bush's opposition to bill H.R. 810 stems (no pun intended) from his religious beliefs as a Christian, and should not be the measure by which such research is determined to be permissible or not. A separation of church and state should extend into the policies of American government, as the religious beliefs of one man should not determine the permissibility or funding of such research that would affect thousands if not millions of people (many in life or death situations).

As usual, however, Bush is not considering the effect such a bill would have on the people. As usual, he chooses to think only of himself and what HE thinks is right. As he has consistently demonstrated to the people, Bush has absolutely no sense of what is right; so what makes anyone think he is right about this?

(from ACPJ column)

Senator Reed Calls for Change of Policy in Iraq
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), speaking from the Senate floor today talked of the “one dimensional” approach the current administration has taken on Iraq.

Military action, being the only course of action the Bush Administration has taken toward the resolution of conflict in Iraq, has failed to bring about a resolution in the war torn country. Reed also spoke of the “strategic deficit” in which the military is currently working under, citing the failure of the Bush administration to garner regional support in Iraq before the invasion.

Reed said that he doesn’t think that Congress should wait for the progress report in September to make a decision on the American military strategy in Iraq.

He says the conflict between Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq is such that the Shia led government has largely been ineffectual.

Reed stated that “ultimately, only the Iraqis can provide the solutions to these political problems, these sectarian divides. We can suggest what they should do but unless they do it, these divides will continue to paralyze the country and to continue to undermine our efforts to help them stabilize their own country.”

Responding to the assertion that Congress should wait until the September progress reports to begin any talks on Iraq, Senator Reed noted that “it has been suggested by many Congress commentators that the ability of the Iraqi government to function, even to participate over the next several weeks is limited.”

He continued with a message to his colleagues who favor waiting until September, saying that he “hoped they’re not suggesting that these profound political problems will be somehow, miraculously cured in the next six weeks.”

Rallying for a change of policy, Senator Reed talked of the increasing ineffectiveness of the current military strategy and the need for a new strategy shying away from the troop surge in favor of a smaller force trained to deal with political factions within Iraq.

“Public support is a critical and necessary element of any national security threat. You can only go so far and so long without it.”

Senator Reed acknowledges the waning support of the American people for the war in Iraq and their distrust of Bush’s policy, and notes that the new strategy needs to be implemented in a way as to gain American’s support.

“[American] tolerance for any significant engagement in Iraq might erode completely by next spring, leaving us with fewer options then, than we have today.”

As the cost of this war continues to mount, it remains financed largely through “deficit spending, which means we are passing on to the next generation of Americans a huge bill.”

Senator Reed continued by asking “how are we going to reestablish our military…, [when this effort is completed] how are we going to provide for the next generation of military equipment, for the next generation of military tactics and techniques, and support personnel?”

Furthermore, Senator Reed, reiterating the need to discuss strategy change in Iraq now, said that “military planners do not see how we can sustain 160,000 troops beyond next April.”

Senator Reed continued by reminding the Senate that not only has our current presence in Iraq turned the tide of world opinion against us, but it has also led to a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the area, as was demonstrated by the press last week.

He also noted that “we are seeing a situation where Iran is increasing its strategic power, and one major factor is that we are tied down with 160,000 troops in Iraq; we are tied down in a way in which many of the individuals in the Iraqi government that we depend on…have close personal and political ties to the Iranians; we are in a situation in which our position in Iraq…has strengthened the Iranians.”

In concluding his speech to the Senate, Senator Reed announced that he and Senator Levin (D-MI) have proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that “calls upon us to begin to take up the issues of real, pro-active, complementary diplomatic and political action that is so necessary to stability operations.”

The Levin-Reed amendment, Senator Reed announced, was supported by Senator Hagel (R-NE), Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), making it a bi-partisan amendment.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that “Levin-Reed gives the President no choice. It requires him to take the steps to responsibly end the war that the country and our brave men and women in uniform demand and deserve. The Levin-Reed amendment:
1.) Sets a firm start and end date to transition the mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces – beginning 120 days after enactment and completed by March 30th;
2.) Limits the U.S. mission to limited counter-terror, training and force protection operations after March 30th;
3.) Requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive diplomatic, regional, political and economic effort.”

(from ACPJ column)

Iraq Spending Bill: Necessary Changes
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins, 05/09/07

It has been over a week now since President George W. Bush vetoed the proposed Iraq spending bill. The bill passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, an obvious indicator that the majority of the American people are fed up with the War in Iraq; yet the incumbent insists on ignoring the will of the people, and even defying his own Congress.

Bush claimed that the $124 billion dollar bill contained too many binding issues, and that he could not “in good conscience”, sign such a bill into law. The omission of a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq (a never ending war) is the only way that Bush will accept a proposed war spending bill; meaning that he would rather our troops remain under-funded and under-equipped just to keep them there in Iraq.

The fact that Congress even sent the bill to the desk of the President amidst his adamancy of a veto has now set a precedent. It says that the citizens of America and the Congress representing the people are determined to end this illegal war in the face of the President’s determination to the contrary.

Now that the precedent has been set, Congress needs not to compromise in the Bush administrations favor, but it needs to create, and send to the Presidents desk, a new spending bill containing articles with an even stricter timetable using the power of the purse for the allocation of funds not for continued war, but to fund America’s withdrawal from Iraq.

Compromise will not produce the necessary results for a lasting peace so if the President continues to veto stipulated spending bills, then Congress needs to continue to set precedent after precedent by sending bill after bill to the Presidents desk; we need to make a larger issue out of this.

“Since Democrats did not appear to have enough votes to muster a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the veto, compromise talks between them and the White House were expected to take place”( http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050107Z.shtml ).

The Democrats are going to try and compromise with the White House on the bill that President Bush referred to as the “Iraq Withdrawal” bill. In fact the bill that was vetoed wasn’t an Iraq Withdrawal bill as it was dubbed by corporate media at the behest of the White House. The bill that was vetoed was the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill; the issue of Iraq withdrawal was simply an article added by Congress as a stipulation to the allocation of the $124 billion contained in the spending bill.

Instead of trying to compromise with the White House, Congress needs to maintain its position on troop withdrawal, and send another bill to the Presidents desk. If he were to veto that one, it would just set another precedent, this one even more significant than the first as it would further set the standard that peace is what the people want.
What most people don’t know (as the media intentionally didn’t report it) is that there are other proposed articles for the spending bill sitting on the shelf, created by senators that were largely ignored by Republicans and Bush constituents, and were never put to a vote.

Considering that President Bush vetoed the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, a new bill needs to be drawn up by Congress.

A president, who is audacious enough to deny the will of the people and defy Congress, does not possess the rational to be compromised with. New spending bills are needed, and they must contain even stricter stipulations than the first.

Senator Russ Feingold composed numerous memos outlining his plan to end the war in Iraq. The memo’s contained what would have essentially been an article that would have been added to the spending bill. What follows are the memos composed by Senator Russ Feingold; including the articles that he proposed. These articles for troop withdrawal are still relevant to the debate raging in Washington over the war in Iraq, and are just one of many existing proposals to solve the problem that America has gotten itself into.

Senate Majority Leader Reid Cosponsors Legislation Forcing President to Safely Redeploy Troops by March 31, 2008
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.
“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Legislation Would Use Congress’s Power of the Purse to Redeploy Most U.S. Troops Out of Iraq in Six Months
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill uses Congress’s power of the purse to force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by prohibiting funds for continued operations six months after enactment. Feingold’s legislation allows for specific operations to continue in Iraq beyond six months, including counter-terrorism efforts, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training of Iraqi security forces. The six-month timeframe provides the President with adequate time to safely redeploy the troops from Iraq.
“By passing my legislation, Congress can respond to the will of the American people and force the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq,” Feingold said. “With the President set on pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power -- it’s because it doesn’t have the will.”
Feingold’s bill is the latest effort in his long record of opposing the President’s flawed Iraq policy. In August 2005, Feingold, who opposed the authorization to use force in Iraq, became the first Senator to propose a timeline to bring an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Yesterday, Feingold chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing where a diverse panel of constitutional scholars testified that Congress does indeed have the power to end a war.
“From the beginning, this war has been a mistake, and the policies that have carried it out have been a failure,” Feingold said. “Congress must not allow the President to continue a war that has already come at such a terrible cost. We have the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to end our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11.”
“…Congress can, and has, used the power of the purse to restrict presidential war power. If members of Congress are worried about American troops fighting for their lives in a futile war, those lives are not protected by voting for continued funding. The proper and responsible action is to terminate appropriations and bring the troops home.”
-Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of Congress, in his book “Presidential War Power.”
Feingold’s legislation:
Prohibits the use of funds for continued deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq after six months of enactment. In other words, the President would have to redeploy troops safely by that date.
Requires the Administration to report to Congress, within 60 days of enactment, a strategy for safely redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq within the six months prior to the fund termination date.
Provides specific exceptions to the prohibition for:
Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations in Iraq.
Allowing a limited number of U.S. forces to conduct specific training for Iraqi security services.
Providing security for U.S. infrastructure and civilian personnel.
Does not prohibit funds for any department or agency of the Government of the United States to carry out political, economic, or general reconstruction activities in Iraq.
Does not prevent any U.S. troops from receiving salaries, equipment, training and other resources.


(from ACPJ column)

Congress Blinks In The Stare-Down Over Timetable
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins, 05/12/07

I wrote an article called "Iraq Spending Bill: Creating Necessary Changes" mere days ago outlining some of the options congress had for the troop withdrawal stipulation in the Iraq Spending Bill.

However I was adamant that Congress NOT negotiate and NOT compromise with the White House over the articles containing the timeline for troop withdrawal.

I felt that Congress needed to continue sending bill after bill containing timelines for troop withdrawal, and if those bills were vetoed by the President it would continue to set precedents; precedents saying that George W. Bush is ignoring the will of the people and defying Congress, and is vetoing a bill in the face of American will.

However, my worst fear has now been realized. Congress folded like a cheap tent and has removed the articles containing a timeline for troop withdrawal.

I had faith that FINALLY, a group of people (Congress) were going to stand up to the President and not back down until our troops were coming home, with a solution to the power vacuum outlined, and a clear proposal for a diplomatic solution to the problems in Iraq (and the entire Middle East for that matter).

Instead Congress bowed down to Bush and the White House and has decided to do the current administration's bidding. No one is standing up and saying "what the hell is going on here”! We should be in the streets over this, not sitting on our ***** waiting for someone else to do something about it.

Anti-war demonstrators thought finally something was going to get done about creating a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats were in a position to make this happen, or to at least continue setting precedents by sending bills with strict articles containing timetables.

When Bush vetoes a bill that has passed in both houses of Congress, it sets a precedent. It makes official the will of the people, and the denial of such by the President, and draws the line in the sand.

The Democrats have completely folded (I suppose it was naive of me to expect that they wouldn't) and have essentially written Bush the "blank check" that they so adamantly protested.

Instead of setting a precedent in favor of ending the war, Congress has now set a precedent to the contrary. They have essentially said that ending the war is not worth the effort.
Instead, they have tried to distract the American people by touting the $20 billion worth of pork projects they have included in the Iraq Spending Bill like it is some sort of worthy substitute for a troop withdrawal timetable.

The Democrats also conspicuously attached an increase in the minimum wage to the Iraq Spending Bill. The minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over a decade, and to attach it to the Iraq Spending Bill is quite suspicious.

This is an obvious attempt by the Democrats to distract the American people from the removal of the troop withdrawal timetable with frivolous articles that have nothing to do with Iraq spending. While the increase in the federal minimum wage is a positive for the American people, the timing of its inclusion, however, is quite suspicious indeed.

I, for one, am not distracted by all these bells and whistles, and see right through the charade; and I hope you do as well. I realize now that nobody in a position to do so wants to end this pointless, illegal war; and why would they? Members of both parties stand to make (or continue making rather) money off the occupation of Iraq.

The problem is not partisan disagreement as they would have you and I believe. On the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats may battle like bitter enemies, but I guarantee you, behind closed doors they’ll agree that making money is priority numero uno. And guess who is going to foot the bill? You and I my friend.

(Philosophical excerpt from ACPJ column)
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins 2008

As humans moved from the Social category to the Intellectual, evolutionary changes in their physicality gave way to a new evolution of the mind. Before humanity, more highly evolved was based on physical complexity. The more physically complex creatures held the advantage over the less physically complex. Adaptations to the environment manifested themselves through the physical bodies of animals. Somewhere along the way, however, something changed and evolution “figured out” that the true advantage lay within the complexity of the mind. Reason and reflection changed the entire playing field of evolution. A completely new realm of existence was opened up with the emergence of reflection. Finely tuned instinct was no longer the advantage. Reason now was the criteria for one to hold the advantage. Life is no longer about strictly survival. A new world now exists to cater to thought, art, love, etc.

(Philosophical excerpt from ACPJ column)
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins 2008

In the beginning there was energy. Somewhere along the way, the density of the university lowered just enough for energy to impart matter. Over billions of years, on, in, and of this matter arises life. Inexplicably, from life came thought and reflection. The entire playing field of evolution was leveled as a result of reflection. Man, having moved into the realm of reflection thus becoming a reflective, sentient being is now the creator of his own existence. Surely the earth and everything in it existed long before man, but with the development of his ability to reflect inward on himself and his own thoughts, came a change in the nature of what a physical reality actually is. Simply observing and perceiving the world with a reflective mind, changes that world's very essence. In other words, the instant man inherited reflection, he became the self awareness of the universe; now able to see, think, and reflect upon itself. The instant this happened, the universe changed with respect to its own awareness, now being manifested through man...

So what’s the answer…? How do I use the phenomenon of thought to affect my somatic self, my physical reality? Perhaps we created this reality. Perhaps our observation of it indeed created it. We are, after all, gods in our own right. Even now as my mind races and my pupils become like pin dots, I can feel the divine rising up within my physical form. God now transcended; my own personal Jesus Christ has yet to find a way to do away with this biological self and encompass the whole of the universe without this somatic burden. The answer thus, is that there is no answer. An answer would imply an objective truth, and the fact that our minds are locked in a subjective existence negates the notion of any sort of answer. "Answers" then, are found in questions relative to our subjective selves. The most relevant question pertaining to the idea of matter-life-reflection, is this: How does one transcend his somatic self, his cumbersome bio-body suite (his physical body) to experience the universe with consciousness apart from a necessary body in which that consciousness must reside? Perhaps when we can transcend subjectivity, an answer will already be waiting.

(Philosophical excerpt from ACPJ column)
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins 2008

One is not being something all the time; one is not something, one does something. The very nature of existence, bound by the passage of time, is such that one is always changing. Being bound of this nature, you are not the same person you were mere seconds ago or will be seconds hence. As it is defined by current American law, one cannot be prosecuted for being something, one is only prosecuted for doing a particular something. For example, one is not convicted of being a murderer; one is convicted of committing a particular ******. Law does not allow for the prosecution of a person with no stated past transgressions, obviously because it is not moral to do so. Justice becomes worthless in the face of the idealized. When war is made upon human beings because of what they are instead of what they are doing, there exists a problem, seemingly without a solution. Without question, a war on terrorism becomes a morally void and impossible concept. The ‘terrorist’ becomes something abstract with the term impossible to define in a clear and objective manner.

Written by: Aaron M. Watkins

“I’m just a dopamine machine
Melatonin flowing as I dream
Serotonin knowing what I mean
Then we can begin”

Written by: Aaron M. Watkins

****** She Says
She watches me smoke cigarettes from the edge of the bed.
With a content look on her beautiful face, glowing, freshly ******.

I slide my hands down her jeans
Through the friction I find my way
To the center of the earth
That’s my girl
That’s my girl

She likes it when I force my member
“******”, she says it tender

The word rolls off her tongue
When the sweat rolls off her body fair
Skills (2) Rating
Report Writing
Article Writing