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framing an innocent man, the guts it takes to fight back, love, integrity--were as fresh as ever, not obscured by the out-of-date clothes and the 'gollies' and 'gee whizzes."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.
Monday, July 11, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)