Saturday, December 31, 2011

The vote suppression fraud

One of the things we will hear about a lot in 2012 is the supposed push to ‘suppress’ the minority vote by requiring voters to show valid ID. Those whose sole sources of news are left-leaning outlets like MoveOn, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and so forth, may already believe there is such a ‘conspiracy’ underway to return us to the days of Jim Crow. That such utter balderdash is being accepted as truth by some intelligent people, along with the credulous, demonstrates the frightening power of propaganda. (These outlets are scrambling to smear the reputation and motives of black Democrats like Artur Davis who are not toeing the party line and have stepped forward to assert that voter fraud does indeed exist and that voter ID laws should be enacted.)

Attorney General Eric Holder, who was unconcerned about members of the New Black Panthers standing at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, armed with billy clubs and telling several voters that they were “about to be ruled by the black man, cracker,” is using his office to block South Carolina’s recently enacted voter ID law, in part on the basis that voter ID requirements cause hardship to the poor, even though the law provides free identification to anyone who needs it. Mr. Holder is apparently unconcerned, as well, that the Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws are constitutional.

It really makes you wonder how we’ve gotten to such a place—where the idea that providing proof that you are a citizen who has the right to vote is being represented by one of our political parties and their allies in the media as not merely a grossly unfair hardship, but evidence of racism and nefarious intent by the other party. It’s mind-boggling. One can’t help but wonder if those people secretly are fine with the idea of an unfair election, as long as it goes their way.

To be perfectly clear, I am not claiming that the securing of valid ID isn’t more of a challenge for people who are poor or otherwise on the margins of society. But the difficulties involved are being vastly overblown, along with the numbers of those affected. Those Democrats who are genuinely concerned about it—as opposed to those who are fanning the flames of irrational hysteria in order to defeat reasonable voter ID requirements—will be out there canvassing to find the people who need a ride, or who need assistance to obtain the ID. The election is nearly a year away—there’s plenty of time for legal citizens who need to acquire ID to do so, and for those who think this is a problem to be out there remedying it. If the NAACP, for instance, is so concerned, why aren’t they organizing to locate the people who need assistance and providing it, instead of lobbying the United Nations to condemn laws passed by U.S. state legislatures as human rights abuses? It beggars belief.

The people who are trying to demagogue this issue are deliberately creating the impression that the laws various states are enacting make the process difficult, on purpose, to deter people, and that is simply not true, something a little open-minded investigation would make evident. The SC law is a good example—an objection always cited is cost, so the ID is free. It should also be instructive that the RI voter ID law was passed with the support of black Democrat legislators. (Media response to that is to ignore it or, again, to smear them.)

If there’s one thing people of good will, whatever their politics, should be able to agree on, it’s that elections should be honest. Only living, legal voters should be able to cast a vote, and they should be able to cast only one vote. By all means, every effort should be made to ensure that those who qualify for proof of voter eligibility but don’t have it, can get it with the least amount of trouble and at no expense if they can’t afford it. But the claim that _any_ burden of proof of eligibility is unfair—never mind abuse—doesn’t pass either the common sense test, or the smell test.

Friday, November 11, 2011

American Heroes

Today I attended the Veterans Day ceremony at the National Cemetery in my town, Wilmington, North Carolina. Like all military cemeteries, it is beautiful--peaceful, plain, the orderly rows of matching headstones a reflection of the order which permeates military life. It is probably more beautiful than many such cemeteries, actually, because it is studded throughout with huge, old trees. The day was perfect, too--cool and sunny with enough breeze to keep the dozens of American flags flying.

A local middle school singing group performed, and during one song which I thought was an inappropriately perky and hip-shaking number for the occasion, I wandered away, down the road that runs down the middle of the cemetery. Two headstones, side by side, caught my eye because the last name was the same, although no alphabetical order existed. One of the men, born in 1899, had served as a private in WWI, and had died in February of 1953. The second, a veteran of the Korean war, was born in 1931 and had died in October of 1952, presumably in the midst of the conflict. Were they father and son, I wondered? Had the loss of a beloved 21-year-old son sent the older man to his own grave only months later? I'll likely never know.

But it reminded me vividly that the collective sacrifice of our armed forces is made up of thousands upon thousands of individual sacrifices, each story unique in some way. There's no paying back, no compensation for what is sometimes utterly crushing heartbreak. I thought, as I often do, about a man from Antioch, Illinois named John Peck.

Cpl. Peck was in Afghanistan in May of 2010, when he stepped on an IED as he acted as minesweeper for his men. He immediately lost both his legs and most of one arm, and yet, believe it or not, it actually got worse. He had picked up bacteria from the soil which invaded his body, and doctors had no choice but to amputate his only remaining limb. His home became Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he underwent dozens of surgeries to fight the bacteria, along with grueling physical therapy. His young wife left him. Honestly, I couldn't believe anyone would be glad to be alive under those conditions, and I felt relief and a little lightening of heart (not to mention profound awe and respect) after watching a video of him in which a strong spirit and a determination to live showed strong and clear. (I'm not sure now
what his current status is, as I haven't been able to find any recent information.)

I guess my point is that when stories like this surface, we are all sad, but the immediate reaction in some quarters is condemnation of the war itself, and the conclusion that this tragedy and all those like it were "for nothing." I'm not saying those people are wrong about the advisability of this war. Perhaps they're right. But what a thing to say to people like John Peck! For myself, I wish not one more American soldier had to die or be injured in that godforsaken place. But I'm also aware that some--including some who fight there--know a lot more about what's at stake than I do, and they think it's a necessary fight. So maybe they're the ones who are right; I simply don't know.

But the one thing I do know, is that Veterans Day should be a reminder that our own opinions of what the government decides to do should not affect our gratitude, respect, and duty to those who have fought and continue to fight. A common perception among a certain part of the population is that soldiers are 'victims'--of propaganda, of economic hardship, of government malfeasance, etc. I wish those people could listen to John Peck talk, after all that happened to him, about his pride in being a Marine, about knowing ever since he was a kid that he wanted to be a military man, because he saw that they even "held themselves" a different way--you could just see the difference in them.

That's no victim talking.

(In honor of these heroes, if your means allow, please consider a donation to Hope for the Warriors or another charity of your choice that serves vets and their families.)

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The biology of a bashed-in skull, aka just another day in school

I had intended to write something about my man, Herman Cain, and my new man, Newt Gingrich, but as I scanned the headlines an item about a fight in a Chicago high school caught my eye. Actually, it wasn't a fight at all. It was a beatdown. Another student filmed the attack with a cell phone.

A pair of sisters, one 17 and one 18, are punching the 14-year-old victim and slinging her around their Biology classroom. The sisters are both large; even in a 'fair fight' with only one of them as an opponent it's doubtful the younger girl could have prevailed. She is clearly just trying to stay on her feet. The sisters are using her long hair to hang onto her and, at one point, smash her head and face into a lab table. According to the news report, the victim sustained a concussion, a neck sprain, and multiple scratches and contusions. Unless it went unreported, there was no concrete reason for the sisters' animosity; the victim says that they told her she'd 'better answer them if they asked her a question,' and the victim's friend says, "they got angry and went ghetto on her."

The news report included an interview with another student who criticizes the teacher for failing to stop the assault, but it should be noted that the teacher appeared to be far smaller than the sisters and, one presumes, not in the habit of settling things with violence. She hovers briefly at the edge of the altercation but indeed doesn't try to stop it, and it's rather hard to blame her. A determined effort to break things up would almost certainly have resulted in physical injury to herself, and probably wouldn't have been successful, anyway. I broke up a couple of fights in my career by physically getting between the combatants, and realized when it was over that I was very fortunate not to have been hurt, possibly seriously. One incident left me with a grapefruit-sized bruise on my thigh.

There are too many issues here to count--race, possibly (the attackers were Black, the victim Hispanic) what's going on in classrooms that something like this could escalate to such a point in the first place, how the obvious lack of student and teacher safety affects learning, and so on. But ultimately, the only thing that really matters is how to stop it. Compare the following statements:

The victim's best friend, a freshman at the school, to NBC Chicago on Wednesday: "Every day there's a fight. Today there was a fight in Algebra."

Chicago Public School spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus, responding to reporters: "Chicago Public Schools does not tolerate violence among students in any way. The safety and security of our students is a top priority and we will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that schools remain a safe environment for learning."

"Remain" a safe environment?? Sounds like that horse is already out of the barn. Whose view do you think is more accurate--a kid who is actually in school for seven or eight hours a day, or some (probably highly-paid) bureaucrat who spends most, if not all, her time in an administrative office? 'We do not tolerate violence among students in any way'? That's school bureaucracy speak for you. Clearly they _do_ tolerate violence because if they didn't, there wouldn't be so much of it. The reality is that in most places, to be actually expelled (and then it's often only for the year) a student has to bring a gun to school or get caught selling drugs. Even if a violent assault like this results in criminal charges, the student still comes back to school!

In the big picture, particularly when it comes to large, urban public schools, society is going to have to make a hard decision. Are the schools really in their stated business, or are they holding areas because we don't know what else to do with kids who are either uninterested in, or unable to benefit from, a genuine education?

If the answer is the first, then simply paying lip service to the idea of zero tolerance for violence must stop. A well-intentioned desire to 'keep kids in school' has resulted in this attack and way too many like it. No matter how egregious some kids' behavior is to others, no matter how egregious their disrespect and contempt for their teachers, they get to stay. So what happens? Their behavior and disrespect become even worse. Truly, I am sympathetic to the question of what happens to the kids who get kicked out, because in many cases their unacceptable behavior has been encouraged by becoming completely 'lost' over the years of their supposed education, and that is not their fault, but the system's. (One wonders about these two sisters--17 and 18 in a class that is usually freshman level--note the 14-year-old victim and her freshman best friend--but is required for graduation.) Nonetheless, that problem can't be solved by allowing chronic troublemakers or those who commit savage assaults to remain in school putting others at risk. Their prospects shouldn't trump those of the non-violent kids who could certainly thrive in a better environment.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Herman Cain is the man...

Doing this from my iPhone as the computer is being worked on, so this will be brief. I am so energized and excited about Herman Cain's candidacy catching fire, although whether it stays that way is certainly an open question. Blindered 'progressives' will never give him a serious look, of course, and never give up their religious belief in Republican/Tea Party 'racism,' so I have no intention of appealing to any vestiges of logical thinking that may remain in those quarters. For the rest of us who have become convinced that almost anyone will be better than Barack Obama but who would like a candidate to be excited about, Herman Cain fills the bill in many ways. Don't get me wrong--I know that his lack of experience in elective office is a drawback no matter how it's spun in this anti-incumbent age, and I've said from the beginning (having been his fan from the beginning) that he would best be utilized as a v.p. pick for a strong nominee. That's the problem--who is that person? But one thing you can take to the bank--inexperience and non-PC gaffes notwithstanding, HC is the real deal. Doubters of BO, whose experience as a black in America in no way approximates Herman Cain's, are embracing Herman precisely because he embodies the possibilities in the America we love and want to preserve, as well as the extraordinary strength and dignity of American blacks who rely on themselves to succeed.

Monday, August 22, 2011

I wonder why Keith Olbermann's viewership continues to drop?

You know, I can't seem to even work up much outrage over the self-satisfied and foolish exchange between Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann that occurred a few days ago on his new show. He probably has, what, ten or twelve viewers, and watching these two lackluster and depressed-seeming individuals having such a lackluster and inane conversation left me understanding why, as well as feeling almost sorry for them. (I am not a viewer, by the way; I just saw the clip.)
--
Garofalo referred to the "inherent" racism of the Tea Party, something Olbermann would not, of course, challenge her to support with any evidence, and went on to opine that Herman Cain was probably being paid by someone--Karl Rove, perhaps--(this provided an unintended moment of hilarity, at least for me) to run, in order to deflect those charges of racism. One wonders if Ms. Garofalo, prior to appointing herself a political expert, did a lot of drugs or something, because the total 'out there-ness' of her speculations was made even more bizarre by the apparent seriousness with which Olbermann treated them. I kept waiting for them to burst out laughing and say "Got ya!"

But no, this was for real, it seems, and it wasn't enough for Garofalo to besmirch Mr. Cain's integrity so thoroughly, she couldn't resist further insulting him with another jab at the Tea Party by suggesting that he perhaps had a touch of "Stockholm Syndrome." (That is the name given some decades ago by a psychiatrist to the phenomenon of captives beginning to sympathize with and defend their captors.)

I won't get into the ridiculousness and absence of any kind of logic that characterized Ms. Garofalo's ramblings, because they're just not worth a lot of attention (and the lack of response from pretty much any quarter suggests maybe 10 or 12 viewers is an over-estimate) but one example will give you the general idea. After the host and his guest snicker over a couple of pictures of Michelle and Marcus Bachmann going down on corn dogs (har-har, very high-brow show!) there is a picture of Rick Perry with his foot up on a hay bale at the Iowa State Fair. Asked her opinion, Garofalo announces the racism of the Tea Party is confirmed by the fact that she doesn't see any black people. Hey, Janeane--it's IOWA! If it was an SNL skit, it would have been funny.

Vladimir Lenin noted that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and that appears to be the strategy behind the constant repetition--sans hard evidence of any kind--of the charge of racism against the Tea Party and all its members. (I am assuming all my readers are bright enough to understand that I am not suggesting there are no individual racists in the Tea Party. There probably are, in the same way that there are individual racists in any group. The white union member demanding of a black Tea Partier whether he had any children he was "willing to claim" comes to mind.)

The people who knowingly push this scurrilous and unfounded slur are doing it because they want gullible and loosely-informed people to "know" it, in the same way they 'know' George Bush is 'stupid,' whether or not they can cite any reasons, and the way they 'know' conservatives don't care about the poor and downtrodden while 'progressives' do, even though they can summon no evidence or logical argument to support their convictions. Why are those things true? "They just are."

So anyone--self-identified Tea Partiers for certain, one assumes, but anyone else as well--who has decided that Obama hasn't done a good job and doesn't deserve to be reelected, is a racist. But someone like Janeane Garofalo who attacks not only Herman Cain's integrity by suggesting he's being paid to run for president, but suggests his mental health is compromised, isn't?

It's always been a problem for aggressive Progressives who are spreading the racism canard, that the Tea Party loves a black man--Herman Cain--so much. So, they're reduced to attacking him to try to explain it. It smells of desperation, and I'm afraid we should just resign ourselves to 14 more months of it.

Again, I think my readers are all intelligent enough to understand that using Bachmann and Rick Perry in the above examples is not an indication that I support them. My candidate, Mitch Daniels, never got in the race, and I am simply watching, right now. The point is that this low-down strategy of denigrating anyone who wants 'change' in 2012 as a racist--whether done crudely and overtly or slyly--has no place in a campaign, regardless of who the Republican nominee turns out to be. That said, things don't look good for Obama, and I don't expect these ugly aspersions to go away. No matter that a lot of people who voted for Obama the first time but won't be voting for him again can't suddenly have turned into racists, logic isn't important to desperate people. Maybe, though, more and more people will begin to see their accusations for what they really are.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

I think the American Atheists need a new president

The following is a portion of a news report about a lawsuit just filed by the atheist organization mentioned in the title:

A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."

The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.

The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.

"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.

The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'

The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.

It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.

Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Mr. Smith goes to Washington

This classic movie starring James Stewart, Jean Arthur and Claude Rains was on one of the movie channels when my boyfriend and I sat down for a few moments prior to starting dinner preparations last night. He commented that he had never seen it all the way through, to which I responded that I had seen it from start to finish at least a dozen times, because I had shown it to my ninth-grade Civics classes (pardon me--Economic, Legal and Political Systems classes) year after year. Far from being disinterested, though, I was rushing to and from the kitchen not to miss what I knew to be the best parts. "No-watch this part!" I would say, not wanting him to miss the wonderful scene where James Stewart battles the clock and his own fatigue to avoid surrendering the Senate floor and his own reputation.

The amazing thing is that my students, for whom this movie was a minimum of 50 years old (I started teaching in 1989 and the film was produced in 1939) LOVED it. I'm sure part of this was due to the fact that they actually had to watch it--I was never one of those teachers who showed movies so they could catch up on their work--and they got a grade for staying awake and being attentive. I would also stop the film several times to make sure they understood what was happening and to discuss things which reinforced what they would previously have learned about the workings of Congress.

No matter how many times I showed "Mr. Smith," I was heartened by the way these 14 and 15-year-olds responded. Initially, they were glum, expecting to have to stare at some corny old movie for two class periods, knowing Ms. Shonosky would make it impossible for them to sleep. "It's in black and white?!" they would exclaim in horror. But little by little they were drawn in, still young enough that Jeff Smith's idealism spoke to them, and rooting, like most of us do, for the underdog. As old-fashioned as everything about the film is, they were willing to overlook it, because it became clear to them that they were watching something with genuine substance. The issues--political corruption, the evil inherent in framing an innocent man, the guts it takes to fight back, love, integrity--were as fresh as ever, not obscured by the out-of-date clothes and the 'gollies' and 'gee whizzes."

I think the kids liked the movie so much because the world they lived in (and I'd guess it's even worse now) was so filled with cynicism, and when it came to politics, well-founded cynicism. Something in them yearned to believe that such an honest man could exist, that there could actually be a Congressman like Jeff Smith, one who saw his service as an honor and a sacred trust with the people.

Maybe it's the kid in me, but I still yearn to believe that, too.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Stoopid people

Okay, I guess I'm not surprised by another example of an idiot on the loose, but I'm dismayed by how the behavior is tolerated. It happened in Savannah, GA and perhaps you saw the news item: a woman orders Chinese food and when it is delivered, decides it's not what she ordered. Her solution? Call 911, of course. The police response is to state that she "could have" been charged with abuse of 911, and then publicize the huge number of administrative, rather than emergency calls, that were received by the 911 line in the previous year.

Well, I guess so. If you're too lazy to look up the non-emergency number, or so self-centered and dimwitted as to believe the appropriate response in any situation that doesn't go your way is to call 911--AND THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR DOING IT--why should you stop? These are the same people you see pulling up in the handicapped spot with their no-longer driving Granny's handicapped decal, because it's all about them and their convenience.

Perhaps the Savannah authorities believe prosecuting these people is a waste of resources, but 'education' about the matter doesn't seem too productive. And if it's 'worth it' or not probably depends on your point of view. Are you or someone you love in staring distance of death, when seconds might mean the difference? Better hope you're not waiting to get through because 911 is busy mediating a food fight.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Death to bin Laden, at last. Kudos to Obama and everyone else involved.

I watched a video clip of a young man whose father, a NYC firefighter, died while responding at the twin towers on 9/11. This very decent kid acknowledged his ambivalence at celebrating someone's death, but added, "for him, it's different."

And it is. I remember receiving, via e-mail on the first anniversary of the attacks, a montage of images from 9/11. Bodies falling, towers burning, people running, shocked faces, ash everywhere. Stuck without warning in the middle of the pictures was a photo of bin Laden, and I was unprepared for the physical reaction I had to his face. My heartbeat accelerated, my fists clenched, and I actually trembled with rage. I had to fight not to cry.

Reports are that he used one of his wives as a human shield--no surprise, if true. The decision to bury the body at sea with dispatch was a good one, I think, although it will fuel the inevitable claims that whoever was killed was not bin Laden. Everyone who follows the news knows that al-Qaeda in Yemen is a more serious threat than bin Laden himself, and that the practical value of his assassination may be minimal. But the psychological value is huge, and I hope the bastard rots in hell.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Who frames the debate about abortion?

One of the people I'm keeping my eye on as a possible GOP candidate for president in 2012 (although he hasn't announced, as of this writing) is Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. He has raised the ire of some fellow conservatives by suggesting a 'truce' with Dems on social issues, so the serious business of our national debt and an economic recovery can be tackled.

I like that, because if a Republican candidate is to be found who can win, he or she cannot be too far to the right on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. But, of course, that raises the question of what constitutes 'too far' to the right. Daniels _is_ a conservative, and he will shortly be signing a bill passed by the Indiana legislature which puts further restrictions on abortions in that state. It also defunds Planned Parenthood in Indiana, a provision Daniels didn't particularly favor, but which was not enough to deter him from signing. That provision will likely mean the loss of $4 million in federal funds, something Daniels, as a cost-conscious executive, isn't happy about, but which didn't trump his conviction that the abortion restriction was morally right.

For my most liberal friends, _any_ restriction on abortion, or any beyond what currently exist, is too far to the right. For someone really on the right of the spectrum on this issue, the Indiana restriction wouldn't be enough. So, what is it? Indiana will now be one of only a handful of states--five, I think--which outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. I believe a much larger number use 24 weeks as the cutoff.

Abortion is such a flashpoint precisely because it _is_ so complicated. Philosophically and from a religious standpoint, if a fetus in the womb is considered a life, then 'when' an abortion is acceptable and when it's not, doesn't matter because it could never be acceptable. I respect those who sincerely believe that, and I think they are maligned when pro-choice advocates portray them, often as a deliberate tactic, as wanting to oppress women by taking away a woman's 'rights.' What they really believe, is that a woman's right to an abortion does not trump another human being's right not to be murdered.

For them, the point at which a fetus becomes viable, i.e., could live outside the womb, doesn't matter, and again, I respect that view. But as a practical matter--in terms of making public policy--it does matter, and history demonstrates that viability has always factored into the equation. In many societies and time periods, the idea of terminating a pregnancy in the early stages was accepted; the common conception was that at a certain point--often when the baby could first be felt moving--the child became 'ensouled,' or became a person.

Is moving from 24 weeks to 20 as a cutoff a good thing? I believe it is. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc., think not, of course, because they believe it is merely an early salvo in a coming war to chip away abortion rights further, if not eliminate them altogether. Certainly, some people would like to see that happen, but the idea that preventing such an outcome depends on digging in and fighting _any_ restrictions is just not logical--it's emotional.

I have no numbers to cite, but I believe a significant majority of Americans accept that a woman's ability to obtain a safe abortion should not be taken away, but also believe there is a responsibility on the part of that woman to obtain it as expeditiously as possible--that there IS a moral difference between aborting a half-inch long fetus that is not yet capable of feeling pain, and aborting one that could actually live, if delivered. I know that a baby delivered several years ago at under 22 weeks survived, and there may be others younger than that, that I haven't heard about. Certainly, given that, 20 weeks as a cutoff, rather than 24, is reasonable.

For those who would say that there are plenty of reasons a woman could be 5-1/2 to 6 months pregnant or more and still require an abortion, maybe so, but most of them aren't compelling enough to warrant the abortion of a baby that is viable. Genuine danger to the mother's life, yes. And as sad as some individual cases might be--women who were victims of incest, for example, who were prevented from seeking help earlier--it is reasonable to decide that unusual and isolated cases should not be the basis for state law. And for those who will argue that late-term abortions will be sought out, anyway, in unsafe conditions, if they are not legally permitted, I don't see that that fact, upsetting as it is, constitutes sufficient reason for deciding there should be no legislation aimed at reducing a practice which does, in fact, take viable lives.

Because that's at the crux of the contention between so-called 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' factions. Whether we like it or not, some reasonable middle ground must be achieved and maintained because a woman does have rights. But her rights are not unlimited, and babies have rights, too.

I know there are many who will disagree with me, so feel free to let me know why.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thanks a lot, DOOFUS

If anyone works in management at Harris-Teeter (or knows someone who does) please mention to them that a few moments on basic manners might be in order, when training employees who obviously didn't learn them at home...

I popped in for a couple of things before I went to an overdue hair color appt., so maybe it was the grey hairs, or the fact that I'd gotten about four hours of sleep, or just that to the child running the register, anyone over a certain age qualifies as old, but he cheerily asked me how my day was going, rang up my purchases and in a booming voice said "Do you qualify for our senior discount?"

I waited a beat, noticing that he reminded me of one of those adolescent dogs that are friendly and eager to please, but who you know will jump up and paw you and slobber all over you because no one ever taught them not to. (I should mention, lest you think I'm oversensitive, that the senior discount kicks in at 60, and I turn 55 in July.)

"Gee, no," I replied, "I don't believe I do, but I really appreciate your asking!"

The irony flew high above his head, of course; he said, "No problem!" and proceeded to put my items in a bag. One of them was a 14-lb tub of cat litter, and you could almost see a little light bulb come on over his head before he solicitously inquired, "Do you need a cart to get this outside?"

I regularly tote 40-lb bags of cat litter, a fact this young man couldn't be expected to know, but it apparently didn't occur to him that I'd managed to get it up there without a cart, including standing in line holding it for a good while. I spent a couple of seconds wondering if I had the arm strength to lift it over my head and bring it down on his, with any accuracy, decided it wouldn't be worth it even if I could, smiled sweetly and said, "No thanks. I'll try to manage."

When I was a kid, I never could understand why so many old people were grouchy...

Monday, April 11, 2011

Pastor Terry Jones, back at it, but Koran-burning isn't the issue...

When I first wrote about Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who ignited a worldwide firestorm last year by threatening to burn the Koran, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, something for which a number of people took me to task. Although I don't think I was necessarily wrong to have done so at the time, his recent behavior does indeed reveal him to be a pathetic publicity-seeker who deserves just about as much notice as the U.S. press gave him this time around. His feeble assertion that he is not responsible for the deaths of nine UN staffers at the hands of outraged Afghan civilians ten days ago is technically true, but how he can live with himself, I don't know. The mullahs who incited the violence, after the Koran burning was publicized by our "ally" Hamid Karzai, are responsible, along with the murderers themselves, but the tool they used was Jones. If his actions were--in any way--necessary or important, then one might view him with less disdain, but they weren't.

No one has attempted to restrict his free speech rights, in his church or in public. He can, and presumably has been, expressing his views about Islam and the Koran to whoever will listen. He said, last year, that he would not burn the Koran--then or ever--but went back on his promise. That, alone, condemns him and his motives. He should be ashamed and contrite, not to mention distraught at the deaths of the UN staffers.

But, Jones is not the point. Most of us can see the difference between his desire to burn the Koran--ultimately an act that is as pointless as it is inflammatory, if you'll pardon the pun--and the desire, for instance, of Danish
cartoonists to publish their work. We can see that in the latter case, there is a clear 'slippery slope' in censoring the cartoonists or expecting them to censor themselves, in spite of the fact that offense will be caused and people might get killed.

But the radical mullahs and their followers do _not_ see that distinction, and never will, because our notions of freedom of speech and religion, not to mention separation of church and state, mean nothing to them, if they even understand them. The murders of the UN staffers were precipitated by three mullahs who urged worshipers at Friday prayers to take to the streets to agitate for Jones' arrest. Whether these particular mullahs were ignorant of the fact that Jones did not commit an arrestable offense under American law, or not, doesn't much matter. Our supposed partner in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, certainly knows he didn't, yet he chose to exploit the incident for political gain by publicizing Jones' actions instead of simply ignoring them, like the rest of the world. This is the same Karzai who recently said he is eager to reconcile with the Taliban.

What are we doing there? The most prominent of the mullahs who incited the murders, Mohammed Shah Adeli, said that if Jones isn't punished, Afghanistan should cut off relations with the United States. What a great idea! I know it's all about Pakistan, really, but I can't help but wish we would just shake the dust of that place off our boots and leave them to it.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

I wonder what God thinks...

when someone shouts "God is great" as he murders people?

For the usual suspects who think I'm Rush in drag, or that this is going to be about Islamic extremism and its encroachment in the West, or who will be quick to point to the Crusades as evidence of Christian militarism and slaughter....spare me, this time.

I'm simply wondering at the immense irony of it all, believing as I do in a just and merciful God. For you atheists, it's easy; there is no God. Religion is the problem and men would be more just and rational without it. I don't agree, but can understand the chain of reasoning.

There are people who think that Islam is the problem, and they base this conclusion on what they know of the Quran. I can't agree with that, either, mainly for the admittedly unsophisticated reason that one of my best friends is a Muslim with a secular world view, and I can't imagine that there aren't millions like her. Those millions of people don't want stonings for adultery (often only the women are sentenced) executions for failing to attend Friday prayers (this happened recently in Somalia) or executions for not being Muslim in a Muslim-majority nation (this just happened to the only Christian member of Pakistan's government.)

It is extremism that is the culprit, and for those who will jump to point out Christian 'extemism,' please cite any examples of calls for the death of non-Christians in the current landscape. There aren't any--plain and simple. Fundamentalist Christians might tell you you're going to go to Hell for being gay, or for not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, or whatever, and you can be understandably annoyed by that, but they're not exhorting their adherents to go out and kill you, in their God's name.

I don't care what happened eight centuries ago; the guy who just killed two members of our armed forces wasn't doing it in revenge for the Crusades, unless that was part of his twisted 'education.' He did it because he's been brainwashed to believe, by those who manipulate for political reasons, that murder in the name of Allah is justified.

Those of us who believe--whether Christian, Jew or Muslim--in one God who is the father of us all, can never countenance such sin.

Monday, February 28, 2011

How do you tell if a cat's depressed, and other intriguing questions...

I have two "senior" cats, one of whom is 16-1/2, the other 12. The younger of the two was diagnosed two weeks ago as diabetic, news I should perhaps have been more prepared for, given that she had lost a fairly significant amount of weight, seemed uncharacteristically hungry, and was drinking more water. I think what threw me off was that I was _trying_ to get her to lose some weight, as she has been mildly overweight for some time, and the initial weight loss, accompanied as it was by an increase in general liveliness, seemed like a good thing. The water consumption I put down to her advancing age.

When it seemed that she was getting a little _too_ thin, I took her to the vet's, a practice I have patronized exclusively for 30 years. I spent $200 for an exam, parasite test and blood workup, and was called by the young vet (there are six or seven in the practice) the following afternoon with the results. She caught me at an awkward moment--in a noisy environment, trying to calculate a tip and sign a bill--but said 'no,' she couldn't call me back or accept a call two minutes later. She rattled off a lot of information about diabetes that I couldn't really hear, couldn't write down and, of course, couldn't process at the moment in order to formulate intelligent questions. This young woman ended the conversation by saying "I'm going to have you come in tomorrow to see Dr. So and So, who will show you how to give the insulin shots." No question, apparently, that we might consider talking about all possible options. She just concluded, without benefit of any input from me, that I had the financial, emotional, and practical resources to commit to twice-daily insulin injections, forever. (Managing diabetes is also much more involved than just giving insulin shots--in many cases it requires a substantial readjustment in one's life, particularly if that life requires frequent travel or travel that arises without a lot of notice.)

For a lot of reasons, that shouldn't have been a foregone conclusion on her part, and I greatly resented that it was. Vets need to make money, I understand this, and I believe that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't conflict with genuine concern for what is best for their patients. Unfortunately, they also have to consider what is best for their patients' owners, and sometimes going to great lengths to keep an elderly pet alive is not it. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but there it is. This cat came to me via my then 16-year-old child; the cat was a semi-feral stray with no other prospects, and I have to keep reminding myself that taking her in and giving her love, care and medical attention for 12 years does not obligate me to do everything possible to extend her life as long as possible. My only obligation is to make sure that she doesn't suffer.

What really irritated me about being rushed into insulin therapy, even if it was with the best of motives, was that had I consented, trying other treatment options--like diet modification--would have been much trickier and potentially dangerous to my cat, due to the dramatic impact a change in diet can have on the amount of insulin required. I switched the cat to a high-protein, low-carb, all wet food diet immediately, and in less than two weeks she has regained 6.5 oz and her blood glucose has dropped almost 100 points, although it is still quite high. I made the decision to start with a new and more conveniently located vet who seems willing to give the diet modification a chance, but he was nonetheless clearly disposed to start insulin right away, notwithstanding the benefits the change in diet has produced.

We've left it that I'll continue the diet modification with a high-quality wet food, and will come in for another blood glucose check in a month, as long as my kitty's condition shows no reason for alarm. I have observed none of the signs of serious illness, even before the blood sugar dropped 100 points, but to be sure, I reviewed those with the vet. He added that if she seemed 'depressed,' I should be concerned.

She seems well, and seems more so each day, but if anyone out there has ever tackled feline diabetes without resorting to insulin, please let me know.

Didn't make it to the other intriguing questions, but they involve how to figure out when you really don't fit in...

We went to a beach bar yesterday, on an impulse after walking on the beach, and found ourselves being looked at--clearly--as curiosities. It was the more redneck of the two local beaches, with a flavor that I actually prefer to the more 'upscale' beach. Everyone in the place looked rough, but there were no fakes or posers, and most were friendly. They were following some kind of stock car race on TV with the greatest of interest. I found myself being examined intently by a man with three braids, one on either side and one down the back, who looked rather fried, like there'd been a lot of drugs in his past. (My companion said he looked dumb as a rock.) His stare was unsettling, intent and vacant at the same time.

Perhaps our T-shirts illustrate the divide better than any descriptions I can provide--mine had a book with a pair of glasses resting on it, next to which was a bottle of wine and the words "Well red." On the sleeve it said, 'Napa Valley.' My boyfriend brought it back the last time he was out that way, visiting his sister. The guy with the braids was wearing a T-shirt that said, "Please tell your boobs to stop staring at my eyes."

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Some changes, perhaps

For several reasons, I've let this blog go, but would like to resume giving it some regular attention. One of the reasons was feeling a little discouraged about how many people might be reading it, especially in view of the fact that when I wrote the newspaper column, I got paid $100 a pop. No money for pretty much the same amount of effort was something I could live with, as long as someone was reading, but if I judged that by the number of 'followers' and the number of people who commented, either on the blog or directly to me, I was guessing a couple of dozen. It didn't seem justifiable in terms of the amount of time spent. So, I was delighted to discover that I could click "Stats" and see how many hits I'd had, along with where, geographically, they originated, and that there were far, far more than I'd guessed.

Another reason my output has dwindled is that I felt constrained (not by anything external) to stick with 'newsworthy' topics, but oftentimes, I didn't feel I had anything to say that wasn't already being said, so without a deadline to meet, I didn't. Then I realized, it's my blog! I can write about anything I want! So, that's where possible changes come in; some blog posts will be along the same lines as previous ones, others may reflect whatever is going through my head at the time, which will possibly be of interest to some, and certainly won't be to all.

A final reason I've neglected the blog is that I was working very hard to finish my novel. I've done that, and am in the process of gathering opinions, coming up with a great query letter, and considering what level of revision to give the book at this point. Opinions differ a bit on how much of that it needs, so I will be seeking more opinions! To complicate things, a non-fiction book proposal I wrote last year has found a publisher, but the advance offered is fairly low. That, along with some other difficulties inherent in the project, are making me hesitant to accept. I guess there are worse problems to have.

At any rate, to those of you who have continued to check back for anything new, thank you, and my goal is to post at least once a week.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Is Michael Vick redeemed?

I usually watch only a couple of football games in a season, but since I live with a man who pays more attention, it’s impossible not to have some football news cross my radar. I’m hearing a fair amount about Michael Vick, of course, the latest was that Howie guy with the flattop and the glasses bleating about his ‘redemption.’ His basis for declaring Vick redeemed was that a) Vick is playing well and b) a “sitting president” inserted himself into the discussion. (The logic escapes me, too.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’ll agree that Vick appears to be rehabilitated. He is gainfully employed, has not offended again, at least that anybody knows, and has re-integrated into society in a way the typical ex-con could never hope to. The applicable definitions for ‘rehabilitate’ in Webster’s Dictionary are to “restore or bring to a condition of good health, ability to work, or productive activity’ and to ‘reestablish the good reputation of.’

The appropriate definitions for ‘redemption,’ on the other hand, are ‘deliverance from sin,’ and ‘atonement for guilt.’ (If the word ‘sin’ makes you uncomfortable, try substituting ‘offense against your fellow creatures,’ which is what sin is, after all. Believers simply believe it constitutes an offense against God, too.)

This is where Vick’s situation gets more complicated. I hope those who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ are just ignorant of the word’s meaning, thinking it interchangeable with ‘rehabilitated,’ rather than knowing the difference. Atonement is defined as ‘reparation for a wrong, amends.’ When it is impossible to truly repair the damage done, which is probably true in the majority of cases and is certainly true in this one—the dead and tortured dogs and bait animals can’t be brought back to life or have their suffering erased—atonement is generally understood to begin with heartfelt repentance, genuine remorse and shame for the harm caused. The only ones who know if Vick feels that are Vick himself and possibly, although not certainly, anyone very intimate with him.

The point is, playing good football and staying out of trouble doesn’t prove redemption. It only proves, assuming the latter lasts, rehabilitation. Playing good football and staying out of trouble are in Vick’s own interest; doing so is earning him millions. Pointing to it as evidence of remorse, or real change of character, is absurd.

I can’t know if Vick has undergone any real change, any more than all these sports pundits can, but my money isn’t on it. Real remorse means that if it were somehow possible for Vick to still have his dogfighting business and be guaranteed that no one would ever know and he would never get caught, he still wouldn’t do it because there was a transformation in his conscience and his consciousness. Imagine how big a change that would have to be, if you were someone who was not only capable of but, apparently, enjoyed engaging in such sickeningly sadistic behavior.

There were more than the electrocutions and drownings, which apparently seem less shocking to people the more time that passes. Vick and an associate killed one dog by swinging him by his back legs, slamming him onto the floor repeatedly until they broke his back and neck. When Vick was still in prison, I read an article about the dogs that had been rescued. One was a female who had had every tooth in her mouth removed with a pair of pliers, for the safety of the males who were mated with her. No anesthesia was used and the article remarked that some of the teeth probably required almost an hour to pry out.

I think Vick regrets doing what he did because of the steep price he paid when he got caught, not because he now sees what horrific cruelty it really was. I’ll reiterate that I can only speculate, and I could be wrong. For the sake of his own soul, I hope I am. But all these people who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ and a changed man, can’t know that, either. I wonder how many of them would put their money where their mouths are and ask Mike Vick to dog sit for a week?