It occurs to me that we need a little whimsy on a sunny Spring day. This is the time of year that I love the best. For the past few years, I have increased my gardening skills to make an impact on my morning walk to pick up the newspaper. (Yes, I still read one, made of printers ink and wood pulp!) Spring came early here this year. Two weeks ago, crocuses said "We're back." The daffodils followed, and are now completing their visit. This week, the tulips exploded in the colorful display I keep hoping for. Bright red, soft white, yellow, purple. Lilies are pushing up, daylilies are green and growing. I dug a new bed for the three hydrangeas I bought. I have callas, oriental lilies, begonias, and foxglove ordered. The peonies are stretching and after 3 years, I hope to have some SERIOUS plants. The rhododendron is starting to bud. Even the boxwoods have a bunch of new growth. I love digging in the dirt. Next come the veggies-tomatoes, peppers, and whatever else seems interesting.
Winter officially ends on Monday, according to me. After a long winter, the NCAA March Madness finals will crown a champion, and winter is over. And next week is Opening Day. For those of you who don't know, that means its baseball season. Finally, again. Go PHILS.
Thanks for stopping by.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Guns and Tears, Part 2
What occurs to me in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin killing is that there is a long trail of death caused by those willing to use violence against those who are different. As painful as it is for this kid's family, as difficult as it is for people to come to grips with the inaction of authorities, and as inexcusable as the action itself is, it is enlightening to look more closely at the plethora of "hate" crimes, not just in America, but through the world. What is most important in looking at the history is finding the complicity of authority in the continuance of crimes of murder, assault, and other forms of terrorizing.
There appear to be two kinds of activity that can be called "hate crimes". The first type is individual or group on individual; the second is actually more deadly, government sponsored and protected murder. In recent times, according to the American Psychological Association, "Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups." "Extreme hate crimes tend to be committed by people with a history of antisocial behavior. One of the most heinous examples took place in June 1998 in Jasper, Texas. Three men with jail records offered a ride to a black man who walked with a limp. After beating the victim to death, they dragged him behind their truck until his body was partially dismembered."
In France, last week, an attack was made on a Jewish school, killing 3 children and a rabbi. Three white men in Mississippi pleaded guilty last week for killing a black man, beating him to death last year. A woman in California was beaten to death with a tire iron. She was an Iraqi Muslim and was found with a note saying "Go back to your own country, you terrorist."
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2011, the number of hate groups in the United States exceeded 1000 for the first time.
This is not new, folks, but is ingrained in American history. Starting with white settlement in the 17th century, systematic killing of those who are "different" is a part of our national DNA. We all know about slavery, the abuses of immigrants, Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs, the KKK, the neo-Nazi "skinheads", the militia groups. We also know about the varied abuses either overlooked by police or direct police participation. Rodney King? What about the gay kid at Rutgers University? or the one in Wyoming a few years ago?
Then we can add those crimes which have been condoned by or caused by the governments world wide. Shia versus Sunni throughout the Middle East. Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland, and throughout history. How about "niggers", "spics", "gooks", "kikes". And there's plenty more, just pick a group. How about Nazi Germany? or the gulags of the Soviet Union? What about the tribal conflicts, murder, maimings, rapes, in a variety of African countries? All these are because people are "different".
What is the common thread? Weapons and power. The power of a government over the people it controls acting outside of moral law is heinous. So is the power of a group to attack, terrorize, and kill. Add to the mix available weapons, and murder is an expected outcome. It hasn't had a reason to stop, because "good" people don't raise their voices. In my opinion, this is the reason that the Trayvon Martin case has been so visible. A kid walking home from a store, talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Dead. Some good people have said, "ENOUGH". Weapons, power, and a government structure willing to look the other way, outside of the law.
I don't know how to stop hate, not a clue. But I do know that if we continue to allow the worst to happen to anyone, randomly, we are in danger of more widespread and dangerous times. And the problem is that we have so much more in common than we have differences, but are unable to get beyond what we have absorbed for so many years. It is naive to think that there are not those who benefit from the continuation of social hatred.
I don't want to think that when I am walking the dog that I need a gun to go around the block. No one should.
Thanks for stopping by.
There appear to be two kinds of activity that can be called "hate crimes". The first type is individual or group on individual; the second is actually more deadly, government sponsored and protected murder. In recent times, according to the American Psychological Association, "Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups." "Extreme hate crimes tend to be committed by people with a history of antisocial behavior. One of the most heinous examples took place in June 1998 in Jasper, Texas. Three men with jail records offered a ride to a black man who walked with a limp. After beating the victim to death, they dragged him behind their truck until his body was partially dismembered."
In France, last week, an attack was made on a Jewish school, killing 3 children and a rabbi. Three white men in Mississippi pleaded guilty last week for killing a black man, beating him to death last year. A woman in California was beaten to death with a tire iron. She was an Iraqi Muslim and was found with a note saying "Go back to your own country, you terrorist."
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2011, the number of hate groups in the United States exceeded 1000 for the first time.
This is not new, folks, but is ingrained in American history. Starting with white settlement in the 17th century, systematic killing of those who are "different" is a part of our national DNA. We all know about slavery, the abuses of immigrants, Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs, the KKK, the neo-Nazi "skinheads", the militia groups. We also know about the varied abuses either overlooked by police or direct police participation. Rodney King? What about the gay kid at Rutgers University? or the one in Wyoming a few years ago?
Then we can add those crimes which have been condoned by or caused by the governments world wide. Shia versus Sunni throughout the Middle East. Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland, and throughout history. How about "niggers", "spics", "gooks", "kikes". And there's plenty more, just pick a group. How about Nazi Germany? or the gulags of the Soviet Union? What about the tribal conflicts, murder, maimings, rapes, in a variety of African countries? All these are because people are "different".
What is the common thread? Weapons and power. The power of a government over the people it controls acting outside of moral law is heinous. So is the power of a group to attack, terrorize, and kill. Add to the mix available weapons, and murder is an expected outcome. It hasn't had a reason to stop, because "good" people don't raise their voices. In my opinion, this is the reason that the Trayvon Martin case has been so visible. A kid walking home from a store, talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Dead. Some good people have said, "ENOUGH". Weapons, power, and a government structure willing to look the other way, outside of the law.
I don't know how to stop hate, not a clue. But I do know that if we continue to allow the worst to happen to anyone, randomly, we are in danger of more widespread and dangerous times. And the problem is that we have so much more in common than we have differences, but are unable to get beyond what we have absorbed for so many years. It is naive to think that there are not those who benefit from the continuation of social hatred.
I don't want to think that when I am walking the dog that I need a gun to go around the block. No one should.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Guns and Tears
What occurs to me is that in August 1955, a young black kid went to visit relatives. He went missing. When he was found, he had a bullet hole behind his right ear, was missing an eye, had evidence of having been beaten. He was found with a 70 pound weight, a cotton gin, attached around his neck with barbed wire, dumped in a river. His name was Emmett Till. He was 14 years old.
In the late evening, in June of 1963, arriving home after a day of meetings, a young black man was shot in the back from the shadows across the road. He died instantly as his wife and children looked on. His name was Medgar Evers.
In the summer of 1964, three young men, who were working to help register voters during the Freedom Summer, disappeared. Their bodies were found two months later, in an earthen dam, in a Mississippi swamp. They had been shot. Their names were Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner.
In February 2012, a young African American boy was returning home, after having walked to a store to buy a snack of iced tea and Skittles. While walking, he was talking on his cell phone to his girl friend. He was accosted by a man, who shot him, dead. His name was Trayvon Martin.
In the first three cases, the killers were acquitted. Only when years passed were the cases reopened, and some convictions were actually obtained.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, his killer was released at the scene, of the murder he had committed, by the police. After nation-wide outrage, the US Department of Justice has stepped in, as has the Florida Attorney General's office. After 3 weeks of doing nothing.
There have been throughout our history crimes committed because of hate, many of which have gone untried, un-convicted, un-arrested, unresolved. With each case, and with each crime, come the tears of the loved ones who never had the chance to say good-bye. And each time, when good people fail to raise a voice in protest, this country takes another step away from God.
To each of these, and to Trayvon's family especially, today, we shed a tear for you, for your son, and for ourselves as a nation. To those who can accept what has happened without that tear, you are as much a demon as the trigger puller.
And why do we have to have this conversation about guns once again, with no resolution? This is a conversation for another time. Tonight should be a time of reflection and prayer.
Thanks for stopping by.
In the late evening, in June of 1963, arriving home after a day of meetings, a young black man was shot in the back from the shadows across the road. He died instantly as his wife and children looked on. His name was Medgar Evers.
In the summer of 1964, three young men, who were working to help register voters during the Freedom Summer, disappeared. Their bodies were found two months later, in an earthen dam, in a Mississippi swamp. They had been shot. Their names were Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner.
In February 2012, a young African American boy was returning home, after having walked to a store to buy a snack of iced tea and Skittles. While walking, he was talking on his cell phone to his girl friend. He was accosted by a man, who shot him, dead. His name was Trayvon Martin.
In the first three cases, the killers were acquitted. Only when years passed were the cases reopened, and some convictions were actually obtained.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, his killer was released at the scene, of the murder he had committed, by the police. After nation-wide outrage, the US Department of Justice has stepped in, as has the Florida Attorney General's office. After 3 weeks of doing nothing.
There have been throughout our history crimes committed because of hate, many of which have gone untried, un-convicted, un-arrested, unresolved. With each case, and with each crime, come the tears of the loved ones who never had the chance to say good-bye. And each time, when good people fail to raise a voice in protest, this country takes another step away from God.
To each of these, and to Trayvon's family especially, today, we shed a tear for you, for your son, and for ourselves as a nation. To those who can accept what has happened without that tear, you are as much a demon as the trigger puller.
And why do we have to have this conversation about guns once again, with no resolution? This is a conversation for another time. Tonight should be a time of reflection and prayer.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Ending War in Afghanistan
What occurs to me is that United States involvement in Afghanistan needs to end quickly. Now, that's clearly as obvious a statement as anyone could make. If you consider only Afghanistan, that no other country has succeeded in ruling there, going back to Alexander the Great, that the US has spent 10 years trying to bring a democratic, all-inclusive government for the Afghanis, and then read about the continuing failures to bring a unified government into the country, the only logical conclusion is to leave. If you only look at the costs in lives, US military and our NATO allies, Afghani combatants, civilians, weighed against the gains, why are we still there? And if leaving were so easy, what's the problem? It seems pretty easy to weigh the pros and cons. After all, the reason we went in the first place, Osama bin Laden, is no longer an issue.
I have two concerns about a simplistic approach to leaving. First, for ten years, we have faced the prospect of a safe haven for terrorists just across the border in Pakistan. Although the Pakistanis are supposedly our ally, there has been an uncomfortable relationship with the military there, as demonstrated by the presence of bin Laden in a Pakistani military community perhaps for years. Add to that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of an unstable government threaten the region and the world. Can we seriously consider abandoning the region when we know that the nukes are in unpredictable hands? We know that there is a less than friendly relationship with India, which also has nukes. If we are concerned about Iranian development of nuclear weapons, how can we ignore a place where they already exist? My second concern is for the civilian population, particularly the women, in Afghanistan. We have brought 21st Century customs to a culture tottering on the brink of return to the 14th Century. If we leave, do we condemn the women there to a culture which will eliminate the freedoms which we had hoped to bring to this population? When we leave, we must do so with the full knowledge that we are resigning the Afghanis to the Taliban. Some will say that isn't our problem, that the government is corrupt, that they should choose their own way of life. On the other hand, remember the US fought a war in the early 1860s to prevent one section of this country from choosing their own way of life.
Prior to World War I and then again, prior to World War II, the United States, protected by oceans, was content to let the rest of the world do what it would. We learned after the Second World War that it was to our advantage to participate in world affairs. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was the only "super power" remaining which was capable of dealing with international problems. Yet, we have been attacked over those protective oceans, so we must remain vigilant, or it will happen again. Today we face new potential threats, such as growing economic powerhouses in China, India, Brazil. We are confronted with a growing belligerence in Russia. We are watching with crossed fingers as the "Arab Spring" expands, hoping that we aren't watching a scorching "Arab Summer". What about our ally, Israel, which has for more than sixty years, been surrounded by countries dedicated to its eradication? Every man and woman in Israel has learned to look over their proverbial shoulder, every minute of every day. We must be cognizant of how our actions will be interpreted by Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians. Is our political rhetoric, especially from Republican candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or John McCain's affinity for bombing everything, undermining efforts to end conflicts?
If you look at pictures of the Middle East or Afghanistan, you are confronted with an image that could be a moonscape. Deserts and mountains, with limited water, overwhelming poverty and illiteracy, wealth gaps of monumental proportion are the rule, not the exception. Corrupt governments, many of which we have supported, have failed to provide for their people, but help perpetuate US financial and business interests, and won us the title, "Great Satan". Can we allow war as an instrument of foreign policy to guide our relations with the rest of the world? Can we afford to be the "policeman of the world"? Should we follow a policy of supporting governments which oppress their own people so we can obtain their natural resources, like oil? These are questions we all must ask ourselves because the answers influence the choices our politicians make.
Bill Maher said the other night that the next time we go to war for oil, we should get some oil. Perhaps the next time we go to war, we should have a really good reason.
Foreign policy is a maze, and we have made constant wrong turns. Because our democracy causes a change in leadership on a regular basis, we bring different views and policies to bear on the international stage. That can be both good and bad, especially when dealing with entrenched despots. We have kept the Karzai government is place in Afghanistan, which has not proven to be in our interests. But if we leave, or when we leave, we must accept the fact that the Afghan people will revert to a way of life we may not want to see. The same can be said of Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. We already have a problem with Iran.
In case you are unsure of what I'm getting at, let me say simply that I would like the US to leave Afghanistan tomorrow. And that in spite of what I would like, I'm not sure that is a good idea. If I'm not able to be definitive, imagine how the experts and policy makers must feel. There are more than two sides to this coin. This won't be the last time I wonder what to do.
Thanks for stopping by.
I have two concerns about a simplistic approach to leaving. First, for ten years, we have faced the prospect of a safe haven for terrorists just across the border in Pakistan. Although the Pakistanis are supposedly our ally, there has been an uncomfortable relationship with the military there, as demonstrated by the presence of bin Laden in a Pakistani military community perhaps for years. Add to that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of an unstable government threaten the region and the world. Can we seriously consider abandoning the region when we know that the nukes are in unpredictable hands? We know that there is a less than friendly relationship with India, which also has nukes. If we are concerned about Iranian development of nuclear weapons, how can we ignore a place where they already exist? My second concern is for the civilian population, particularly the women, in Afghanistan. We have brought 21st Century customs to a culture tottering on the brink of return to the 14th Century. If we leave, do we condemn the women there to a culture which will eliminate the freedoms which we had hoped to bring to this population? When we leave, we must do so with the full knowledge that we are resigning the Afghanis to the Taliban. Some will say that isn't our problem, that the government is corrupt, that they should choose their own way of life. On the other hand, remember the US fought a war in the early 1860s to prevent one section of this country from choosing their own way of life.
Prior to World War I and then again, prior to World War II, the United States, protected by oceans, was content to let the rest of the world do what it would. We learned after the Second World War that it was to our advantage to participate in world affairs. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was the only "super power" remaining which was capable of dealing with international problems. Yet, we have been attacked over those protective oceans, so we must remain vigilant, or it will happen again. Today we face new potential threats, such as growing economic powerhouses in China, India, Brazil. We are confronted with a growing belligerence in Russia. We are watching with crossed fingers as the "Arab Spring" expands, hoping that we aren't watching a scorching "Arab Summer". What about our ally, Israel, which has for more than sixty years, been surrounded by countries dedicated to its eradication? Every man and woman in Israel has learned to look over their proverbial shoulder, every minute of every day. We must be cognizant of how our actions will be interpreted by Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians. Is our political rhetoric, especially from Republican candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or John McCain's affinity for bombing everything, undermining efforts to end conflicts?
If you look at pictures of the Middle East or Afghanistan, you are confronted with an image that could be a moonscape. Deserts and mountains, with limited water, overwhelming poverty and illiteracy, wealth gaps of monumental proportion are the rule, not the exception. Corrupt governments, many of which we have supported, have failed to provide for their people, but help perpetuate US financial and business interests, and won us the title, "Great Satan". Can we allow war as an instrument of foreign policy to guide our relations with the rest of the world? Can we afford to be the "policeman of the world"? Should we follow a policy of supporting governments which oppress their own people so we can obtain their natural resources, like oil? These are questions we all must ask ourselves because the answers influence the choices our politicians make.
Bill Maher said the other night that the next time we go to war for oil, we should get some oil. Perhaps the next time we go to war, we should have a really good reason.
Foreign policy is a maze, and we have made constant wrong turns. Because our democracy causes a change in leadership on a regular basis, we bring different views and policies to bear on the international stage. That can be both good and bad, especially when dealing with entrenched despots. We have kept the Karzai government is place in Afghanistan, which has not proven to be in our interests. But if we leave, or when we leave, we must accept the fact that the Afghan people will revert to a way of life we may not want to see. The same can be said of Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. We already have a problem with Iran.
In case you are unsure of what I'm getting at, let me say simply that I would like the US to leave Afghanistan tomorrow. And that in spite of what I would like, I'm not sure that is a good idea. If I'm not able to be definitive, imagine how the experts and policy makers must feel. There are more than two sides to this coin. This won't be the last time I wonder what to do.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Responding to a Smart Reader
What occurs to me is that even when someone tries to avoid saying things which can be misinterpreted, there will be times when they can be misunderstood. This is a lesson for everyone in our daily lives. Even the most innocuous comment can be hurtful, even if not intended. One reader responded to me that my comment about Jeremy Lin could be implied to mean that other basketball players are not smart. The interrelations of race and intelligence have been an underlying negative force in the dialogue of American, and perhaps world, race relations for as long as I have been alive, and way before.
My comment was meant to say that being smart is cool. We have for years used terms such as geek and nerd to classify smart kids who don't have physiques like Arnold Schwartzenegger, who play chess, and who could run circles around us on a computer. My generation, including me, call the "kids" when we can't figure out what we did to lose what we typed in the computer, and they have answers. And can anyone look at Bill Gates, a college dropout (of course the college was Harvard), and have any doubt that being smart is cool? Or Mark Zuckerberg?
Intelligence like that is a gift, no less than the ability to be a professional athlete. Have no doubt, however that the achievements are not automatic. Hours in a classroom, or a gym, or both. Hours in analysis of problems whether on the field or the code printout. Being neither a gifted, or even barely competent athlete, and not being as smart as I at one time thought I was, I appreciate both the jock and the geek, and wish them the best of the future.
But more importantly, I would like to see more emphasis on smart, because that is where the future will be determined. Academics and athletics cannot be mutually exclusive activities in a school environment. Too often we hear of athletes being allowed to progress through school simply because they are athletes, and the academics are not important. This is especially true in college sports, which are the showcase, the lead-up, to professional sports. If academics are ignored, we leave our student athletes short of the promise made to them--to get an education. Why is that important? Because there must be a foundation prepared when inevitably the skills diminish, when age sets in. There is life after 30. We must be sure that the kids who play ball are ready for it.
Whether you are White or Black, Asian or Hispanic or Native American, or anything else, you can learn to be smart at something. Finding what you do best is the means to a successful future. Smart is cool.
Thanks for stopping by.
My comment was meant to say that being smart is cool. We have for years used terms such as geek and nerd to classify smart kids who don't have physiques like Arnold Schwartzenegger, who play chess, and who could run circles around us on a computer. My generation, including me, call the "kids" when we can't figure out what we did to lose what we typed in the computer, and they have answers. And can anyone look at Bill Gates, a college dropout (of course the college was Harvard), and have any doubt that being smart is cool? Or Mark Zuckerberg?
Intelligence like that is a gift, no less than the ability to be a professional athlete. Have no doubt, however that the achievements are not automatic. Hours in a classroom, or a gym, or both. Hours in analysis of problems whether on the field or the code printout. Being neither a gifted, or even barely competent athlete, and not being as smart as I at one time thought I was, I appreciate both the jock and the geek, and wish them the best of the future.
But more importantly, I would like to see more emphasis on smart, because that is where the future will be determined. Academics and athletics cannot be mutually exclusive activities in a school environment. Too often we hear of athletes being allowed to progress through school simply because they are athletes, and the academics are not important. This is especially true in college sports, which are the showcase, the lead-up, to professional sports. If academics are ignored, we leave our student athletes short of the promise made to them--to get an education. Why is that important? Because there must be a foundation prepared when inevitably the skills diminish, when age sets in. There is life after 30. We must be sure that the kids who play ball are ready for it.
Whether you are White or Black, Asian or Hispanic or Native American, or anything else, you can learn to be smart at something. Finding what you do best is the means to a successful future. Smart is cool.
Thanks for stopping by.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Writing Isn't the Hard Part
What occurs to me is that what I am doing, what so many others are doing, what many have done for so many years, writing on a regular basis, is challenging. Writing requires planning of both subject and then what exactly to say. It requires careful word selection so present the specific idea the writer wants the reader to understand. Also, it requires the discipline to prepare properly, to set aside the time, which is difficult for all but those who have absolutely nothing else to do.
Every writer wants to tell a story, regardless of the type. Whether news, history, business or fantasy, the story must be designed to draw the reader to the lesson which makes the story important to the reader. A dedicated writer must therefore have selected a topic, researched the needed information, learned enough to become expert at least for the story, and then write it. Finding the right theme, the proper word truly matters so as to make the point clear.
When I started this blog, I thought I had enough material to write an entry each day, no problem. Not so. As I have reviewed just the list I made on my first post, I have realized that even small pieces of any of the topics would require thought before writing. Once a post is made public, I realized I couldn't take it back. So, it requires me to be circumspect and not write when I haven't done my homework.
I would like to write every day, and on those days when I can, I will. I promised myself that this was not a Tweet or a FB post. It won't be. So for those who have read my stories thus far, thank you. I owe you the courtesy of not writing junk. Consequently, I will have material that is prepared which I can say, "Please read", and be able to stand behind it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Every writer wants to tell a story, regardless of the type. Whether news, history, business or fantasy, the story must be designed to draw the reader to the lesson which makes the story important to the reader. A dedicated writer must therefore have selected a topic, researched the needed information, learned enough to become expert at least for the story, and then write it. Finding the right theme, the proper word truly matters so as to make the point clear.
When I started this blog, I thought I had enough material to write an entry each day, no problem. Not so. As I have reviewed just the list I made on my first post, I have realized that even small pieces of any of the topics would require thought before writing. Once a post is made public, I realized I couldn't take it back. So, it requires me to be circumspect and not write when I haven't done my homework.
I would like to write every day, and on those days when I can, I will. I promised myself that this was not a Tweet or a FB post. It won't be. So for those who have read my stories thus far, thank you. I owe you the courtesy of not writing junk. Consequently, I will have material that is prepared which I can say, "Please read", and be able to stand behind it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Why I Would Be Pissed If I Were A Woman
What occurs to me after a week of uncontrolled vitriol about women, in Congress, in the news, on the politic talk shows, and from Rush Limbaugh is that we are regurgitating the same garbage that I heard in high school and college. Cloaked in fallacious arguments about religious freedom, the attacks are aimed to denigrate women, and in particular and by association, liberal, progressive, Democratic women.
Let's look at the past few weeks. We had the question of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies for employers who were affiliated with religious organizations, read this as Catholic Church. An accommodation was made by the President which was acceptable to those folks who wanted a reasonable solution, although not to those who won't agree to anything that Mr Obama does.
For a few days, we were assaulted by the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to stop support for Planned Parenthood, led by a woman who is an avowed right wing activist and anti-Choice female. Although she resigned, the Komen position discarded its mission of helping women, in a non-partisan effort to end breast cancer, and as an organization, elected to accept a political position. Regardless of the resignation of Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen has lost the trust of many people, because they didn't prevent Ms. Handel from doing the damage in the first place. Their works were admirable, their words are meaningless now. My donation will go elsewhere.
We have watched over the past months' efforts by politicians to pass "personhood" legislation, which would make use of contraception illegal. In Mississippi and Colorado, the legislation was defeated by public referendum. In the last couple of weeks, the state legislature of Virginia proposed a bill to require women to undergo a trans-vaginal probe ultrasound in order to obtain an abortion. The law was changed to require a "less" invasive procedure, after Governor McDonald saw that his chances to become a Vice Presidential candidate were hanging by a thread. V.P-Vaginal Probe. Great campaign slogan.
This week, we were treated by Rushbo to a full scale attack on a female law student who was denied by the Republicans an opportunity to address the issue of medical need for contraception, and why she believed coverage was critical. She was accorded the opportunity to discuss her testimony at a forum composed of Democrats, particularly female legislators. Limbaugh used his radio show to attack this woman as a slut and prostitute. He said he wanted to see sex videos of all the women who take birth control pills, if he was going to pay for those pills. After losing a number of advertisers, and hopefully more to come, he offered a typical apology, claiming that he was trying to be funny. If you can't take a joke...is that the idea, Rush? There were no Republican candidates who were willing to criticize Limbaugh, and no members of the Republican party willing to do so either.
Mixed in with all this rhetoric was the comment made by Santorum supporter, Foster Friess, about putting aspirin between their knees so women wouldn't have to spend so much on birth control pills. What if there were a requirement for a penile probe to get Viagra, Mr. Friess? Would you keep your knees together?
Admit it, guys, men are pigs. And we keep proving it. My problem with this issue is that there is no possible logic behind it. Men benefit as much as women by birth control pills. No pregnancy, no abortion, no "shot gun wedding". I do not like abortions, especially as a political issue. I think abortion is none of my business. And it's none of any man's business, other than a doctor, spouse or significant other, even if he is a one-night stand. Letting men make decisions about women's health is as logical as being "pro-life" and in favor of capital punishment, or killing doctors who perform abortions.
Another issue is employers having the right, by conscience, to decide what should be allowed in an employee health benefit program. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned here, but don't employers choose what policies they will make available now? The problem is employer based health insurance, but that's another story.
Forty years ago, the early stages of the modern feminist movement was an on-going news story. Today, we are watching it again. For years, women were controlled either by their fathers or husbands. Slowly, state by state, different laws allowed women to have some control over property they owned. Until President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, with no Republican support, unequal pay was allowed by law. There is still no Federal law granting women equality in our society.
America has been an example, or at least we want to think we have, for the rest of the world. Civil rights however have not been "granted" to any group. There have been pitched battles, some bloody, some deadly, so a minority could reach legal parity to some degree. Race relations are still being fought over, and women will need to continue to fight. If indeed we are to give hope to other populations, such as the women of Afghanistan, who face the threat of being forced back into the middle ages, women need to win this fight. And support from men would be helpful. But guys, if you can't help, shut up and get out of the way.
Thanks for stopping by.
Let's look at the past few weeks. We had the question of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies for employers who were affiliated with religious organizations, read this as Catholic Church. An accommodation was made by the President which was acceptable to those folks who wanted a reasonable solution, although not to those who won't agree to anything that Mr Obama does.
For a few days, we were assaulted by the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to stop support for Planned Parenthood, led by a woman who is an avowed right wing activist and anti-Choice female. Although she resigned, the Komen position discarded its mission of helping women, in a non-partisan effort to end breast cancer, and as an organization, elected to accept a political position. Regardless of the resignation of Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen has lost the trust of many people, because they didn't prevent Ms. Handel from doing the damage in the first place. Their works were admirable, their words are meaningless now. My donation will go elsewhere.
We have watched over the past months' efforts by politicians to pass "personhood" legislation, which would make use of contraception illegal. In Mississippi and Colorado, the legislation was defeated by public referendum. In the last couple of weeks, the state legislature of Virginia proposed a bill to require women to undergo a trans-vaginal probe ultrasound in order to obtain an abortion. The law was changed to require a "less" invasive procedure, after Governor McDonald saw that his chances to become a Vice Presidential candidate were hanging by a thread. V.P-Vaginal Probe. Great campaign slogan.
This week, we were treated by Rushbo to a full scale attack on a female law student who was denied by the Republicans an opportunity to address the issue of medical need for contraception, and why she believed coverage was critical. She was accorded the opportunity to discuss her testimony at a forum composed of Democrats, particularly female legislators. Limbaugh used his radio show to attack this woman as a slut and prostitute. He said he wanted to see sex videos of all the women who take birth control pills, if he was going to pay for those pills. After losing a number of advertisers, and hopefully more to come, he offered a typical apology, claiming that he was trying to be funny. If you can't take a joke...is that the idea, Rush? There were no Republican candidates who were willing to criticize Limbaugh, and no members of the Republican party willing to do so either.
Mixed in with all this rhetoric was the comment made by Santorum supporter, Foster Friess, about putting aspirin between their knees so women wouldn't have to spend so much on birth control pills. What if there were a requirement for a penile probe to get Viagra, Mr. Friess? Would you keep your knees together?
Admit it, guys, men are pigs. And we keep proving it. My problem with this issue is that there is no possible logic behind it. Men benefit as much as women by birth control pills. No pregnancy, no abortion, no "shot gun wedding". I do not like abortions, especially as a political issue. I think abortion is none of my business. And it's none of any man's business, other than a doctor, spouse or significant other, even if he is a one-night stand. Letting men make decisions about women's health is as logical as being "pro-life" and in favor of capital punishment, or killing doctors who perform abortions.
Another issue is employers having the right, by conscience, to decide what should be allowed in an employee health benefit program. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned here, but don't employers choose what policies they will make available now? The problem is employer based health insurance, but that's another story.
Forty years ago, the early stages of the modern feminist movement was an on-going news story. Today, we are watching it again. For years, women were controlled either by their fathers or husbands. Slowly, state by state, different laws allowed women to have some control over property they owned. Until President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, with no Republican support, unequal pay was allowed by law. There is still no Federal law granting women equality in our society.
America has been an example, or at least we want to think we have, for the rest of the world. Civil rights however have not been "granted" to any group. There have been pitched battles, some bloody, some deadly, so a minority could reach legal parity to some degree. Race relations are still being fought over, and women will need to continue to fight. If indeed we are to give hope to other populations, such as the women of Afghanistan, who face the threat of being forced back into the middle ages, women need to win this fight. And support from men would be helpful. But guys, if you can't help, shut up and get out of the way.
Thanks for stopping by.
Friday, March 2, 2012
If I Were a Woman
What occurs to me is that the unconscionable attacks being made on women requires me to think about how I would feel if it were me under attack. Words that come to mind are shameful, distasteful, stupid, throwback, antediluvian, anachronistic, cowardice, un-Christian. That's just for starters. I'm glad it's Friday, because this discussion needs preparation. And it's really painful to restrict my language, because some of the words may not even be in a dictionary. But this one is coming. If I need to be a little controversial to get someone to disagree with me, then to quote my former President, "Bring it on." Have a nice weekend.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Our World
What occurs to me is that we have a great responsibility, living in this world. Ultimately, we own nothing, we only rent. Some of us rent more things than others, but nothing we have is ours forever in perpetuity. Simply put, we all die. Even our bodies are rented and return to the earth. Our responsibility is to manage our world as best we can, and leave it in as good shape as possible.
Consider for a moment that in the past 60 years, the world's population has grown from 2.5 billion to 6.8 billion people. Almost 3 times as many people inhabit this planet now as when I was born. Imagine a glass of water and it's all yours. Then there's another person, and you have to share your glass of water. Before the second person came along, you drank all you wanted, but now with less water, you have to share what's left. And then, a third person joins you and now with even less water, you have to share what's left with two other people. Now, with less to share, and three people who want to drink, you have to find a way so that each of you has water. But, if each gets some water, the glass will get emptier faster. What happens when the glass is empty?
This is what has happened in my lifetime. Over the past 40 years, the issues of world population growth and resource consumption have continued to elude solution. Let's suppose for a moment that climate change is not factually supported, regardless of the politics or science. There are two facts that still are unassailable. The first is that there will continue to be more people that our planet must support with basic necessities-food and water, clothing, and shelter. The second is that there is a finite amount of resources to share among the growing population. Consider all the political rhetoric about oil and gas prices, natural gas versus renewable and sustainable fuels, environmental protection versus drill, baby, drill. We have a limited supply of all resources, and as more people demand them, there will be a burgeoning threat to the stability of our economies, our governments, and our lives.
What happens when the glass is getting empty? We have only a few choices. We decrease the number of people who want the water, by force. We agree to limit the amount each can have, by agreement. We find other resources to replace what we will need, by research, education and exploration. We get to choose which path we travel. If we choose force, we have the water we want, but no new water. If we agree to share, we all have less water, but no new water. If we look for alternatives, we may run out before we find a new source. And there is looming another person who will want some water.
Have you ever heard the term, "peak oil"? It refers to the point in time where we reach the maximum oil extraction rate, after which the rate declines because we use it faster than supply can be replaced in the market, and because the overall availability of oil decreases because it becomes more difficult to find. Although it has been estimated that this point will be reached by 2020, pessimistic estimates state that we have already reached that point.
There are other resources which are similarly definable as limited. In fact, all are finite; some simply have longer lifespans. There only so much to go around, folks. Whether or not human existence is creating an alteration in our climate is relevant because it may hasten the utilization of the resources we need to continue life on this planet. Failure of governments to act on alternatives, finding replacement resources, will increase the chances that we will fight wars based on scarcity, rather than find timely solutions. If our job on earth is to hand our stewardship to generations to follow us, we must allocate human resources to that task, now and on-going. If not, all the rhetoric, particularly in Washington, D.C., about passing "debt" to our grandchildren is mere demagoguery.
Back to our glass of water. Water is the basis of all life on earth. The human body consists of 75% water. And even potable water is a limited resource. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but by the end of this century, known sources of water for drinking, cooking and washing, are going to disappear. Even today, it is estimated that 80% of the world's population has limited access to supplies of usable water.
We are all in this together. Sink or swim. If we are not aware or if we don't care, we are going to have failed in our responsibility to future generations. If we wait, we lose.
Thanks for stopping by.
Consider for a moment that in the past 60 years, the world's population has grown from 2.5 billion to 6.8 billion people. Almost 3 times as many people inhabit this planet now as when I was born. Imagine a glass of water and it's all yours. Then there's another person, and you have to share your glass of water. Before the second person came along, you drank all you wanted, but now with less water, you have to share what's left. And then, a third person joins you and now with even less water, you have to share what's left with two other people. Now, with less to share, and three people who want to drink, you have to find a way so that each of you has water. But, if each gets some water, the glass will get emptier faster. What happens when the glass is empty?
This is what has happened in my lifetime. Over the past 40 years, the issues of world population growth and resource consumption have continued to elude solution. Let's suppose for a moment that climate change is not factually supported, regardless of the politics or science. There are two facts that still are unassailable. The first is that there will continue to be more people that our planet must support with basic necessities-food and water, clothing, and shelter. The second is that there is a finite amount of resources to share among the growing population. Consider all the political rhetoric about oil and gas prices, natural gas versus renewable and sustainable fuels, environmental protection versus drill, baby, drill. We have a limited supply of all resources, and as more people demand them, there will be a burgeoning threat to the stability of our economies, our governments, and our lives.
What happens when the glass is getting empty? We have only a few choices. We decrease the number of people who want the water, by force. We agree to limit the amount each can have, by agreement. We find other resources to replace what we will need, by research, education and exploration. We get to choose which path we travel. If we choose force, we have the water we want, but no new water. If we agree to share, we all have less water, but no new water. If we look for alternatives, we may run out before we find a new source. And there is looming another person who will want some water.
Have you ever heard the term, "peak oil"? It refers to the point in time where we reach the maximum oil extraction rate, after which the rate declines because we use it faster than supply can be replaced in the market, and because the overall availability of oil decreases because it becomes more difficult to find. Although it has been estimated that this point will be reached by 2020, pessimistic estimates state that we have already reached that point.
There are other resources which are similarly definable as limited. In fact, all are finite; some simply have longer lifespans. There only so much to go around, folks. Whether or not human existence is creating an alteration in our climate is relevant because it may hasten the utilization of the resources we need to continue life on this planet. Failure of governments to act on alternatives, finding replacement resources, will increase the chances that we will fight wars based on scarcity, rather than find timely solutions. If our job on earth is to hand our stewardship to generations to follow us, we must allocate human resources to that task, now and on-going. If not, all the rhetoric, particularly in Washington, D.C., about passing "debt" to our grandchildren is mere demagoguery.
Back to our glass of water. Water is the basis of all life on earth. The human body consists of 75% water. And even potable water is a limited resource. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but by the end of this century, known sources of water for drinking, cooking and washing, are going to disappear. Even today, it is estimated that 80% of the world's population has limited access to supplies of usable water.
We are all in this together. Sink or swim. If we are not aware or if we don't care, we are going to have failed in our responsibility to future generations. If we wait, we lose.
Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)