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...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Tea Party and term limits?
I originally wrote a longer version of this post on the night before the election but learned, to my chagrin, that in future I should write my posts in 'Word' and paste here, because sometimes, when you hit 'publish,' it doesn't get published at all, but simply disappears forever into cyberspace....
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)