I dropped off Rachel at school this morning, came home, and emptied and re-filled the dishwasher. I got myself some breakfast while Sela wailed for me to feed her too. I got her latched on, drank my vanilla soy milk, ate two pieces of raisin toast, and started doing my web-surfing ritual. Sela fell asleep. Then it dawned on me that I was chanting "jellyfishing, jellyfishing, jellyfishing," a la Spongebob Squarepants, in tune with the rinse cycle of the dishwasher. Because that's what it sounds like.
If you find my senses, please return them to me. Thanks.
Skip to 1:23. It's the only one I could find.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A senator, a priest and a health care bill walk into a bar...
Imagine my pleasure at finding a rare species of Democrat, the pro-lifer. Based on what you hear in the news, you'd think they were extinct - but they're out there, and the people have voted for them into positions of power, which is such an encouraging piece of information to have discovered today. (I'm being slightly droll, folks.)
Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions. Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women. While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place. They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.
This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it. When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself: while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it. Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action." Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations. (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)
Now, here is my full disclosure. Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions. They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers. They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption. They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination. I've been to church and heard the messages.
So with that all being said, here is my question: If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message? I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard. Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote. I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe. I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on. Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch. The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this. But I digress.
Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP. Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state. Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes. Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too! How about that! There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas. It's not just the Catholic Church.
This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it. No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media. You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to. Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course. We don't do our own research. We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process. We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting. We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."
Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt. Here's what I'll do: I'll meet my readers halfway.
Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions. Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women. While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place. They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.
This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it. When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself: while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it. Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action." Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations. (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)
Now, here is my full disclosure. Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions. They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers. They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption. They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination. I've been to church and heard the messages.
So with that all being said, here is my question: If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message? I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard. Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote. I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe. I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on. Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch. The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this. But I digress.
Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP. Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state. Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes. Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too! How about that! There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas. It's not just the Catholic Church.
This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it. No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media. You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to. Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course. We don't do our own research. We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process. We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting. We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."
Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt. Here's what I'll do: I'll meet my readers halfway.
- I do not want my tax dollars used for abortion. Fetuses are both babies and live beings. I would be in favor of teaching sexual responsibility, however, and encouraging parents to be NOT be lazy and let the schools do it for them. For criminy's sake, tell your kids about STDs and pregnancy. Tell your kids that having a baby will not produce someone who loves you - babies only love themselves. That is their survival mechanism. (I have a blog entry awaiting rumination about that, too.) Tell your kids that sex does not always equal love. Tell your boys to be responsible men and to take their fertility as seriously as women do. Tell your girls that marriage and pregnancy do not always equal happiness - loving thyself is the first step to building a life of love. Tell your kids what abortion is: A medical procedure that scrapes and vacuums the inside of a woman's uterus in order to prevent the birth of a live baby. It's surgery, it's risky, and with any other procedure, it has its risks.
- I believe that the definition of marriage spans social, cultural and religious contexts, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I would be in favor of permanent partnerships - the "everything but marriage" rights, for those folks who love those kinds of catchy phrases. Give them equal rights, but don't force religious institutions to marry them. Let them enjoy the same tax obligations and divorce laws that the rest of us do. I don't think it's right or fair that a committed gay or lesbian couple do not have rights to see their sick loved ones in a hospital or not be able to get health insurance on their partners' plans. Let the United States give equal rights, but don't force churches to do the same.
- I don't mind that my current tax dollars could fund a safety net for folks who lose their health insurance - who knows, someday I might need that safety net. But I don't want my government to force me to keep the public option once I find another job. Don't make me do that. That's utter bull and taking away my right to choose coverage for me and my family. There's also a steep fine - I believe it's 2.5% of gross adjusted income - for people and families declining the coverage who don't qualify for the subsidy. The middle class bell curve is becoming skinnier by the day. Don't penalize me if I don't have insurance just so you can ensure the income to fund that behemoth of a public plan in order to avoid raising taxes. I have an education and a head on my shoulders that works properly. I appreciate the fact that my tax dollars will go towards insuring my insurance coverage (???) but trust me when I say that I have the ability to get my own job and pay for whatever insurance I choose, regardless if I have to use the public option or not.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Horse is Dead
Among gossip blogs and news outlets alike, there are a few people who are still in the news that, well, shouldn't be. Are we trying to ignore the impending health care legislation that will soon make its debut in the Senate? Ignoring the 10% unemployment rate? Whatever we are trying to get away from, I still can't believe the following clowns are still getting jawed over:
Carrie Prejean: A conservative beauty queen whose remarks about gay marriage brought her front and center, but now we just have to read about her sex tape and her anti-porn remarks. Honey, you ain't the only one with an overblown ego and still providing a worthless job for your publicist. See Kardashian, Khloe.
Paris Hilton: Ok, she actually does a few things like sell some perfume and help luxury designers keep size-11 shoes in vogue. Otherwise, this describes exactly what I think is wrong with Hollywood: Brain drain.
Jon Gosselin and Levi Johnston: Two bad fathers getting the limelight. Exactly the role models that young men need these days. Also known for neither of them able to keep it in their pants (Jon's got eight kids, and Levi does his 'Playgirl' shoot next week. If I have to read one more article about manscaping...)
Anyone Lohan: More dysfunctional than when we were introduced to the Osbournes, this family is certified Grade-A quacky. An absentee father and money-grubbing White Oprah fight freely in the spotlight for the next headline about their daughters Lindsay and Ali, with both of the kids looking like they are as old as Mom. Last week, Michael Lohan exposed some juicy taped phone calls about Lindsay's ongoing War on Drugs (she's losing big time). Now Dina Lohan has figured out a way to get her daughter's name associated with Heath Ledger.
Anyone Kardashian: Saturating the news outlets like week-old cat pee, the Kardashians have found plenty of ways to keep the lens in their direction. Pregnancy! (Fake) marriage! Boobs! Butt! Black eyes! Reggie Bush! If you think the name sounds familiar, Google "Kardashian Simpson" and see why.
Joe Jackson: Just... no. His son dies and now he's gossip fodder - of his own making.
Bad Dads in General: Hmm. Jude Law (although Mama isn't that much of a winner either). Balthazar Getty (a married father of four frolicking with Sienna Miller). Larry Birkhead (one of Anna Nicole Smith's several paramours who dragged a DNA fight through the mud). It's too bad there's plenty more.
So why do we thrive on worthless celebrity gossip? Do we love the escape from our own lives? Do we equate this kind of life with money, power or prestige? Is it a way to bring celebs down to our level, trying to find every mistake and sex tape they've made, to bring them down off their pedestal and realize they're more like us inconspicuous folk? It's probably a bit of each. Just another few questions in my unofficial, everlasting study of American news and gossip media, its attempts at showing us newsworthy stories without a filter, and the questions we should ask ourselves when accessing it on a daily basis.
Carrie Prejean: A conservative beauty queen whose remarks about gay marriage brought her front and center, but now we just have to read about her sex tape and her anti-porn remarks. Honey, you ain't the only one with an overblown ego and still providing a worthless job for your publicist. See Kardashian, Khloe.
Paris Hilton: Ok, she actually does a few things like sell some perfume and help luxury designers keep size-11 shoes in vogue. Otherwise, this describes exactly what I think is wrong with Hollywood: Brain drain.
Jon Gosselin and Levi Johnston: Two bad fathers getting the limelight. Exactly the role models that young men need these days. Also known for neither of them able to keep it in their pants (Jon's got eight kids, and Levi does his 'Playgirl' shoot next week. If I have to read one more article about manscaping...)
Anyone Lohan: More dysfunctional than when we were introduced to the Osbournes, this family is certified Grade-A quacky. An absentee father and money-grubbing White Oprah fight freely in the spotlight for the next headline about their daughters Lindsay and Ali, with both of the kids looking like they are as old as Mom. Last week, Michael Lohan exposed some juicy taped phone calls about Lindsay's ongoing War on Drugs (she's losing big time). Now Dina Lohan has figured out a way to get her daughter's name associated with Heath Ledger.
Anyone Kardashian: Saturating the news outlets like week-old cat pee, the Kardashians have found plenty of ways to keep the lens in their direction. Pregnancy! (Fake) marriage! Boobs! Butt! Black eyes! Reggie Bush! If you think the name sounds familiar, Google "Kardashian Simpson" and see why.
Joe Jackson: Just... no. His son dies and now he's gossip fodder - of his own making.
Bad Dads in General: Hmm. Jude Law (although Mama isn't that much of a winner either). Balthazar Getty (a married father of four frolicking with Sienna Miller). Larry Birkhead (one of Anna Nicole Smith's several paramours who dragged a DNA fight through the mud). It's too bad there's plenty more.
So why do we thrive on worthless celebrity gossip? Do we love the escape from our own lives? Do we equate this kind of life with money, power or prestige? Is it a way to bring celebs down to our level, trying to find every mistake and sex tape they've made, to bring them down off their pedestal and realize they're more like us inconspicuous folk? It's probably a bit of each. Just another few questions in my unofficial, everlasting study of American news and gossip media, its attempts at showing us newsworthy stories without a filter, and the questions we should ask ourselves when accessing it on a daily basis.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Halloween Currency Frights
So, today I was at the bank because I couldn't access my savings account online. I had transferred the rest of the money out of the account to cover a bill, but when I tried to put some back in, poof - no savings account. I tried to make a deposit through the ATM. Denied.
*Stomping feet to the car* Fine, I'll bite. Off to the bank branch in person. I gave them my check and asked them to deposit it into my savings account, and... it's not open any more. A manager came over to try to re-open it, but she couldn't, and so our conversation went:
Me: "So, the account is closed? There is a minimum balance?"
Manager: "No. It was just at zero too long."
Me: "But there's no minimum balance?'
Manager: "No."
She was very helpful in opening a new one for me and depositing my check, but now I have a PayPal transaction that's going to have a big, fat FAIL on it when they eventually figure out my savings account had been buried without a proper memorial service. How does an account close itself if there is no minimum balance? How does my account cause the bank any grief if it just sits idle for a few weeks? I think it was at zero for 30 days or so when I realized that I couldn't transfer money to it any more. Does an empty savings account REALLY cause that much overhead that they have to close it? It's just a virtual placeholder, for criminy's sake. Maybe they closed it because they were afraid I was going to use it again and gather that 0.000000001% interest on the balance every quarter. A penny for your savings, please.
You'd think between the precarious position of the dollar and numerous bank failures, Citizens Bank would at least want to keep the option open for me to put money back into the bank. Although, Bank of America has no problem with keeping my credit account open after declining an APR increase, just in case I use the card one day, so they have the option of raising my APR to 14% on one card and 25% on the other. The timeframe for what Obama and his administration signed for the credit laws is simply too long - they should have done a sting operation so the credit companies don't have several months to milk their customers of sinfully high APR percentages, making up new fees and increasing existing ones. I don't know why they look so pleased when we're still hurting.
Oh dear. Between a screaming, colicky baby who is teething at four months old and the general state of our economy, I believe I have turned into an unreasonable nitpicker whose foray into this blog has lost a bit of focus. But what better way to find out what's going on in the national news that to actually live it? Credit used to be cheap, but when it was made available to every person whose credit score was less than perfect, it spiraled out of control. Similarly, when every person could get a mortgage regardless of their income or credit history, those who usually could not afford owning a home are now paying dearly for it.
What does this have to do with my closed savings account? No clue. Not much about this economy or money in general makes sense these days. In order to "save" this economy, everyone has a different theory: Is it spreading the wealth? Spreading opportunity? Trade allies? Ugh, who knows. All I know is that banks are failing and I didn't have a place to rest the money I DO have. If anyone can make sense of that knotty mess, I'd be much obliged.
*Stomping feet to the car* Fine, I'll bite. Off to the bank branch in person. I gave them my check and asked them to deposit it into my savings account, and... it's not open any more. A manager came over to try to re-open it, but she couldn't, and so our conversation went:
Me: "So, the account is closed? There is a minimum balance?"
Manager: "No. It was just at zero too long."
Me: "But there's no minimum balance?'
Manager: "No."
She was very helpful in opening a new one for me and depositing my check, but now I have a PayPal transaction that's going to have a big, fat FAIL on it when they eventually figure out my savings account had been buried without a proper memorial service. How does an account close itself if there is no minimum balance? How does my account cause the bank any grief if it just sits idle for a few weeks? I think it was at zero for 30 days or so when I realized that I couldn't transfer money to it any more. Does an empty savings account REALLY cause that much overhead that they have to close it? It's just a virtual placeholder, for criminy's sake. Maybe they closed it because they were afraid I was going to use it again and gather that 0.000000001% interest on the balance every quarter. A penny for your savings, please.
You'd think between the precarious position of the dollar and numerous bank failures, Citizens Bank would at least want to keep the option open for me to put money back into the bank. Although, Bank of America has no problem with keeping my credit account open after declining an APR increase, just in case I use the card one day, so they have the option of raising my APR to 14% on one card and 25% on the other. The timeframe for what Obama and his administration signed for the credit laws is simply too long - they should have done a sting operation so the credit companies don't have several months to milk their customers of sinfully high APR percentages, making up new fees and increasing existing ones. I don't know why they look so pleased when we're still hurting.
Oh dear. Between a screaming, colicky baby who is teething at four months old and the general state of our economy, I believe I have turned into an unreasonable nitpicker whose foray into this blog has lost a bit of focus. But what better way to find out what's going on in the national news that to actually live it? Credit used to be cheap, but when it was made available to every person whose credit score was less than perfect, it spiraled out of control. Similarly, when every person could get a mortgage regardless of their income or credit history, those who usually could not afford owning a home are now paying dearly for it.
What does this have to do with my closed savings account? No clue. Not much about this economy or money in general makes sense these days. In order to "save" this economy, everyone has a different theory: Is it spreading the wealth? Spreading opportunity? Trade allies? Ugh, who knows. All I know is that banks are failing and I didn't have a place to rest the money I DO have. If anyone can make sense of that knotty mess, I'd be much obliged.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Quick Hitters
With two little girls, a business to run and more transcription than I know what to do with, things have been pretty crazy in my abode, and my poor blog is sprouting cobwebs worse than the ones sold at Wal-Mart for the Halloween season. No matter how small my readership is, I know some of you visit on a frequent basis, so thanks for keeping the faith.
I just have a few brief thoughts on some news items that you are probably familiar with. I'll hyperlink when appropriate; otherwise, you'll just get to hear me jabber on!
I just have a few brief thoughts on some news items that you are probably familiar with. I'll hyperlink when appropriate; otherwise, you'll just get to hear me jabber on!
- A Facebook friend made a great point on her status today: In a nutshell, Ed Rendell is asking sick folks to stay home and recuperate without spreading H1N1. The friend thought it "funny" that Rendell can say this to folks living near or below the poverty line while he earns six figures. How sad is that? Job security is shakier than ever, and yet we feel that we have to choose between spreading our germs or keeping our jobs.
- Is it me, or does the sex offender/missing child ratio seem to favor the Florida area more than most? Another day, another child dies at the hands of some sicko in that Southern state. Yet another Facebook friend posted what she'd like to do to these people, and I can say that some very bad thoughts indeed have crossed my mind if someone were to get their paws on my girls.
- I think everyone should be able to have health insurance. There was a time when I faced a lapse in coverage, and it was awful. But I'm not sure the Dems have the right idea with this public option. For starters, the deficit has swelled to the amount it was after WWII. That is a right large deficit for me, my husband, children and children's children to pay off. Insurance companies have gotten much too powerful, but then again, I don't want to stay in the public option if I leave my job, especially if I can afford a private plan.
- Did anyone else cheer when Ken Lewis (Bank of America CEO) resigned from BofA, and then pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to pay back $1M in compensation? And then did anyone get SPITTING mad when we found out his compensation package ($69.3M)? Look, you need to pay good money to good businessmen and entrepreneurs who can help create jobs. But when he turns into a crook who is making me pay 25% interest on a debt incurred from a failed business attempt, with no late payments or other blemish on my perfect credit record, then I wonder how BofA can afford to give that compensation while posting a third-quarter loss of about $1 billion? No one wins.
- H1N1. I'm not vaccinating against that or seasonal/regular flu. I'm not against it, but I've got worries about vaccinating against a virus. That said, it's killing people my age, so I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried a little bit.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Proof that the U.S. Still Needs a Lesson in Diplomacy
Just reading the first few paragraphs of this column made me think about the exact reason why many nations hate the self-proclaimed "Free World."
Ed Rollins, a frequent contributor to CNN, states in the highlights of his column that Obama says "winning over U.S. foes isn't an important foreign policy goal." He further goes on to state that President Bush and his team, while making some mistakes, was in office during 09/11 and kept this country safe throughout both his terms, and then explores what happened during the UN National Security Council meeting last week.
*Looking around* First of all, I thought we were past the "everyone play nice in the sandbox" negotiations. Mr. Rollins, we're dealing with adult men here. If they have power in their hands, they'll want the big toys that everyone else has, and saying "NO! BAD LEADER! PUT IT DOWN!" in your best Lewis Black imitation is only going to make them want it more. Let's get real here.
At the UNNSC meeting, the 15 countries' representatives approved a six-page measure that would encourage a nuclear weapon-free world. And who was gathered around that table? China. France. The Russian Federation. Britain. U.S. No one's giving up those nuclear bad boys. Neither is Pakistan, Israel or India. Furthermore, Mr. Rollins suggests that the real goal of the meeting should have been to admonish North Korea and Iran for creating nuclear weapons, and to stop and desist immediately. France's Nicolas Sarkozy even went as far as calling the Security Council "weak" for not being more forceful about this, especially with Iran flexing their nuclear muscles by testing short- and long-range missiles during the same timeframe of the meeting. Obama states:
To be sure, I did not mind that we went to war. Diplomacy in 2001 was not what we needed. 09/11 was an act of war, and we went in with guns blazing. But eventually we strayed from the path while trying to find the rightful enemy. We strayed from looking for who we needed to, tripped over our own feet, landed in Iraq and thought we could take this on, too. Now Obama has a mess in Afghanistan to start all over, which is where we should have stayed in the first place to look for these people.
But I digress, as usual. Let's get back to diplomacy. Courtesy of Wikipedia:
For anyone who has kids: Don't we need positive reinforcement more? Granted, I'm short on that sometimes with my 4-year-old daughter. It's easier to yell and say "KNOCK IT OFF" than to encourage them when they are being good and staying out of your hair. Diplomacy is kind of like that. We see these other leaders treating their people and countries like garbage, but bullying them relentlessly will not mend their ways. As long as we haven't been dealt an act of war, we need to figure out a way to start talking to these people. It's not pleasant, but diplomacy never is. Dirty and hard work, that is. But there is no diplomacy if no one is listening.
Let me be clear: 09/11 was an act of war, and I think the response was appropriate. I think it was misguided as the war went on, spreading ourselves too thin, and I think Obama is right to focus back on Afghanistan and put Iraq to the side now. But for Iran and North Korea, who have yet to bomb us, we have the power on our side. We don't need to be bosom buddies with Ahmadinejad and Jong-il. We don't have to share our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with them and tell them all our little secrets. But we've got to find a way to keep communication open so that they will actually listen when we speak. What is war, really, than a child who tunes out an ever-berating parent to do their own thing without regard for anyone else?
Ed Rollins, a frequent contributor to CNN, states in the highlights of his column that Obama says "winning over U.S. foes isn't an important foreign policy goal." He further goes on to state that President Bush and his team, while making some mistakes, was in office during 09/11 and kept this country safe throughout both his terms, and then explores what happened during the UN National Security Council meeting last week.
*Looking around* First of all, I thought we were past the "everyone play nice in the sandbox" negotiations. Mr. Rollins, we're dealing with adult men here. If they have power in their hands, they'll want the big toys that everyone else has, and saying "NO! BAD LEADER! PUT IT DOWN!" in your best Lewis Black imitation is only going to make them want it more. Let's get real here.
At the UNNSC meeting, the 15 countries' representatives approved a six-page measure that would encourage a nuclear weapon-free world. And who was gathered around that table? China. France. The Russian Federation. Britain. U.S. No one's giving up those nuclear bad boys. Neither is Pakistan, Israel or India. Furthermore, Mr. Rollins suggests that the real goal of the meeting should have been to admonish North Korea and Iran for creating nuclear weapons, and to stop and desist immediately. France's Nicolas Sarkozy even went as far as calling the Security Council "weak" for not being more forceful about this, especially with Iran flexing their nuclear muscles by testing short- and long-range missiles during the same timeframe of the meeting. Obama states:
How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them? ... We live in the real world, not a virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.So, Obama is trying to figure out a way to negotiate and be the diplomat. Something that Bush never really tried to do, even though he had some brilliant minds on his advisory team. Every time that man opened his mouth, it was stubborn, tight-fisted "THERE ARE WMDs OUT THERE" that squandered whatever steam he had going for the revenge that this country wanted after watching thousands of innocents die at the hands of religious fanatics.
To be sure, I did not mind that we went to war. Diplomacy in 2001 was not what we needed. 09/11 was an act of war, and we went in with guns blazing. But eventually we strayed from the path while trying to find the rightful enemy. We strayed from looking for who we needed to, tripped over our own feet, landed in Iraq and thought we could take this on, too. Now Obama has a mess in Afghanistan to start all over, which is where we should have stayed in the first place to look for these people.
But I digress, as usual. Let's get back to diplomacy. Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Diplomacy: "The art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states."Nowhere does it say that it is a means to being chummy the enemy. No matter how despicable these people are, if you want to talk to them, you've got to play a tiny bit nice. Look what Bill Clinton did to release those two young ladies from North Korea - he went over there, posed for a picture with the Oriental Elvis (I'm trying to be nice but it's HARD) and got those girls back home to their families. Kim Jong-il is a bastard and a nut, but that doesn't mean we can just brush them off over and over and shake our fingers at them, because it'll keep pushing them. They have control over millions of people, and if we succeed at making them more angry at us, they'll keep going in the wrong direction.
For anyone who has kids: Don't we need positive reinforcement more? Granted, I'm short on that sometimes with my 4-year-old daughter. It's easier to yell and say "KNOCK IT OFF" than to encourage them when they are being good and staying out of your hair. Diplomacy is kind of like that. We see these other leaders treating their people and countries like garbage, but bullying them relentlessly will not mend their ways. As long as we haven't been dealt an act of war, we need to figure out a way to start talking to these people. It's not pleasant, but diplomacy never is. Dirty and hard work, that is. But there is no diplomacy if no one is listening.
Let me be clear: 09/11 was an act of war, and I think the response was appropriate. I think it was misguided as the war went on, spreading ourselves too thin, and I think Obama is right to focus back on Afghanistan and put Iraq to the side now. But for Iran and North Korea, who have yet to bomb us, we have the power on our side. We don't need to be bosom buddies with Ahmadinejad and Jong-il. We don't have to share our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with them and tell them all our little secrets. But we've got to find a way to keep communication open so that they will actually listen when we speak. What is war, really, than a child who tunes out an ever-berating parent to do their own thing without regard for anyone else?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Jesus and the Crossroads
Every once in a while, I sit back and wonder if what I'm doing as a parent is really right. What kind of impressions am I making on my daughters? What good is coming of my parenting? Are my anxieties, fears and mistakes that are permanently blemishing their newly forming minds that will screw them up as adults? Things like that. There is so much information available at our fingertips, so much to teach and know when those questions come from their tiny mouths, that sometimes I wonder if being left in the dark is better for our family... and yet, this is how prejudices are formed, when one refuses to accept learning as a lifelong journey. And that is something I am very sure that I do not want my children to learn, especially if it's the last thing they DO learn.
I bring this up because parenting a family must be something like how a modern day clergy for any particular religion must feel. Here they have a congregation, whether it's just a tiny community of a few families and friends, or a stately church within their own land with millions of followers around the world, contemplating how to guide their faithful in the ways of those in the holy texts that began it all. In this modern age, I don't doubt that some of the moral decisions being made are not only challenging those beliefs, but also trying to make sense of when that information, that freedom of choice, that free will becomes more burden than benefit.
Take the matter of procreation. This day and age, nearly any couple could be given the gift of a child even if their bodies are not supplied to do so - whether it's hormones or sexual orientation, the boundaries that used to restrict childbearing to those blessed by evolution are being broken with amazing speed. While I do not want to comment on the moral, religious implications of IVF and surrogacy, you can't help but wonder if the religious authorities really, truly know what to do with this.
Now, coming from a Roman Catholic household, I know exactly what the Church has established with regards to procreation, and I can sum it up very succinctly for you: Anything that is not completely, 100% natural is not permitted. No hormones, no condoms, no surrogates. Excluding adoption, the marriage of a man and a woman and their fruits of their physical love is the only right way to procreate. It also seems to me that most Abrahamic religions (among them Christianity, Judaism and Islam) hold similar beliefs. So it is interesting to me that this couple, who were implanted with someone else's embryo during IVF, consulted a priest about what to do with the child and how to handle the situation with the other couple (the genetic parents). They say that it was not really a decision, that they knew that they must carry and give this child back to the genetic parents, but all the same consulted a religious authority about the decision.
To which I reply: How the heck do you answer a question like that? You've got to wonder if Abraham knew this kind of moral dilemma would plague future generations. Granted, in this day and age, you usually don't get the finger shaken at you - "This wouldn't have happened if you didn't use IVF in the first place!" - but you wonder if they think that before trying to advise them on what to do now.
Some days, I wonder if religious authorities simply are trying to keep up with these kinds of moral dilemmas, which are popping up right and left. Often I wonder how clergy are dealing with such things being shared, whether it's in the confessional or just among friendly chats, and whether they are actually providing more guidance than the heads of churches simply because they can't keep up. It's kind of like the process of how the U.S. government passes legislation: So bogged down by trying to do what is right, that by the time they get the legislation signed by the President, someone's already found the loophole. But when it comes to religious law, the stakes are much higher - not dealing with earthly judgments but those of whatever afterlife they believe in, trying to do right in this life in order to be rewarded in the next.
I really can't say if this couple was right or wrong in pursuing IVF, because it's a decision I've never had to entertain. Even though a third party helped them to pregnant bliss, would one believe that God still blessed that embryo with life? Even though we're told that unnatural ways of childbearing is not right, is not God still involved in the process? Doing right by the people who are the most defenseless - the poor, the unborn, the elderly, the sick, the unwanted, the wrongfully accused - still is the bottom line, no matter what kind of technology we can dream up. So I do believe that they made the correct decision in light of the clinic's mistake by carrying the child to term and agreeing to give the child back to the genetic parents.
Still, it's a cautionary tale. As we find more ways to use technology and medicine to resolve today's problems, the debate as to what is "right" and "wrong" becomes more arbitrary than based on rules. When you see someone die from Alzheimer's, lose a breast to cancer, or experience the indignity of muscular dystrophy, it's easy to understand what drives us. But we do have to be prepared for the debate of when such things go wrong, and especially when they involve an innocent, new, unblemished life.
I bring this up because parenting a family must be something like how a modern day clergy for any particular religion must feel. Here they have a congregation, whether it's just a tiny community of a few families and friends, or a stately church within their own land with millions of followers around the world, contemplating how to guide their faithful in the ways of those in the holy texts that began it all. In this modern age, I don't doubt that some of the moral decisions being made are not only challenging those beliefs, but also trying to make sense of when that information, that freedom of choice, that free will becomes more burden than benefit.
Take the matter of procreation. This day and age, nearly any couple could be given the gift of a child even if their bodies are not supplied to do so - whether it's hormones or sexual orientation, the boundaries that used to restrict childbearing to those blessed by evolution are being broken with amazing speed. While I do not want to comment on the moral, religious implications of IVF and surrogacy, you can't help but wonder if the religious authorities really, truly know what to do with this.
Now, coming from a Roman Catholic household, I know exactly what the Church has established with regards to procreation, and I can sum it up very succinctly for you: Anything that is not completely, 100% natural is not permitted. No hormones, no condoms, no surrogates. Excluding adoption, the marriage of a man and a woman and their fruits of their physical love is the only right way to procreate. It also seems to me that most Abrahamic religions (among them Christianity, Judaism and Islam) hold similar beliefs. So it is interesting to me that this couple, who were implanted with someone else's embryo during IVF, consulted a priest about what to do with the child and how to handle the situation with the other couple (the genetic parents). They say that it was not really a decision, that they knew that they must carry and give this child back to the genetic parents, but all the same consulted a religious authority about the decision.
To which I reply: How the heck do you answer a question like that? You've got to wonder if Abraham knew this kind of moral dilemma would plague future generations. Granted, in this day and age, you usually don't get the finger shaken at you - "This wouldn't have happened if you didn't use IVF in the first place!" - but you wonder if they think that before trying to advise them on what to do now.
Some days, I wonder if religious authorities simply are trying to keep up with these kinds of moral dilemmas, which are popping up right and left. Often I wonder how clergy are dealing with such things being shared, whether it's in the confessional or just among friendly chats, and whether they are actually providing more guidance than the heads of churches simply because they can't keep up. It's kind of like the process of how the U.S. government passes legislation: So bogged down by trying to do what is right, that by the time they get the legislation signed by the President, someone's already found the loophole. But when it comes to religious law, the stakes are much higher - not dealing with earthly judgments but those of whatever afterlife they believe in, trying to do right in this life in order to be rewarded in the next.
I really can't say if this couple was right or wrong in pursuing IVF, because it's a decision I've never had to entertain. Even though a third party helped them to pregnant bliss, would one believe that God still blessed that embryo with life? Even though we're told that unnatural ways of childbearing is not right, is not God still involved in the process? Doing right by the people who are the most defenseless - the poor, the unborn, the elderly, the sick, the unwanted, the wrongfully accused - still is the bottom line, no matter what kind of technology we can dream up. So I do believe that they made the correct decision in light of the clinic's mistake by carrying the child to term and agreeing to give the child back to the genetic parents.
Still, it's a cautionary tale. As we find more ways to use technology and medicine to resolve today's problems, the debate as to what is "right" and "wrong" becomes more arbitrary than based on rules. When you see someone die from Alzheimer's, lose a breast to cancer, or experience the indignity of muscular dystrophy, it's easy to understand what drives us. But we do have to be prepared for the debate of when such things go wrong, and especially when they involve an innocent, new, unblemished life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
