Not far from the site of an extremely controversial battle, a mother hunkers in her home. She is afraid to leave. She fears for the safety of her two children and their father. The family has received threats that if they are caught out-side their doors, they will be killed.
The government promises her protection, but the mother knows that won’t be enough. There is a very strong possibility that people outside her doors will make good on their promise. Now she bunkers in her home fearing that the very people who have sworn to protect life will kill her.
Knight Ridder Tribune reports that the other woman in Michael Schiavo’s life, Jodi Centonze, fears for the safety of Michael Schiavo and their children. Centonze was told that she was “next.” Last week, we learned of a man who was arrested for taking out a bounty on Michael Schiavo’s head.
Throughout years of court battles, KRT reports that Centonze stayed in the background. She backed Michael Schiavo, visited his wife and even did her laundry.
Now people new on the scene want to kill her.
Those of us who don’t quite ‘get it’ watch with amazement as pro lifers bomb abortion hospitals and execute doctors at abortion clinics. I watch that situation enabled by a system that provides legal support for people who would carry out these missions.
In Iraq and around the world, we call people who would bomb and kill other individuals, terrorists. I’m trying to figure out why the same term wouldn’t apply here. Citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights and the doctors whom they employ live in fear.
They know that a stranger can deliberately kill them at any time. They know that the killing would happen in support of an ideological cause and celebrated as a victory for “God.” And so they are terrorized.
When radical Islamists commit acts of terror, Americans demand that main-stream Islam supporters speak out, and conservatives bemoan the fact that mainstream Muslims don’t speak out forcefully enough.
Well it’s time for conservatives to start practicing what they preach. It’s about time someone starts speaking out against the extreme fringe right to lifers who think it is justified to take a life while campaigning to save one.
More importantly, it’s time that conservatives start speaking out against the extremists who would commit such atrocities in their name. That denunciation needs to be heard loud and clear from the top. We should clearly hear vows about hunting down pro-life terrorists and bringing them to justice.
If George Bush and his party have denounced these acts, I haven’t heard them. That, to me, is further evidence of his sincerity; I have heard everything else he’s wanted me to hear.
I heard him spout on and on about why Social Security is broken and needs to be fixed. I heard him declare that freedom is on the march in Iraq. I heard in celebrate the virtue of tax cuts.
But I’ve not heard one word against pro lifers who would kill innocent people. On that form of terrorism, he and other conservatives are uncomfortably silent.
I’m sure if pressed they would say, “of course we don’t support taking another human life,” but they have to be pressed. That’s the problem.
It’s time for Bush to go after the terrorists – “wherever they are.” It’s time for Bush to speak up in support of life. All life.
“To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of all men.”
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Tech toting teachers
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/nra_safe_schools_2
The National Rifle Association says we should start arming teachers. They were serious.
The National Rifle Association says we should start arming teachers. They were serious.
Friday, March 25, 2005
A conversation on tough issues usually takes two
Maybe Bill Clinton took the last pair when he left the White House, but the Democrats have been unable to get their hands on any since then.
One of the most appalling developments during the national "conversation" on life, government and Terri Schiavo was the absence of any real debate. The religious right was vocal and aggressive in framing the issue as one about the sanctity of life. But the opposing view went almost without a sponsor.
There was the conspicuous absence of any compelling voice coming from the Democratic Party. Last Sunday when the debate reached the House of Representatives, Barney Frank was left to make the opposition's case practically alone. All of the so called leaders of the Democratic Party were silent.
It's not like they didn't have encouragement from public sentiment. By a margin of 63 percent to 28 percent, an ABC News poll said Americans supported removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and almost 70 percent resented Congress' involvement.
Even with those numbers, the Democrats were too timid to get involved.
It reminded me of the Iraq War and the 2004 election all over again. When the president coasted on stratospheric approval ratings and proposed a war, Democrats climbed over each other to fall in line and appear to be in step. Most overwhelmingly supported giving the president the power to go to war with Sadam Hussein, against their better judgments and counter to the will of their base.
Later when the war started going sour and Howard Dean's protest began to find traction, there was the parade of Democrats scurrying across the street. Later in the election, explaining their actions required the kind of spin that provided fertile ground for Republicans to plant seeds of doubt about their sincerity.
Here we go again. The nation is involved in a discussion about life, death, and the role of the government in our lives, and Democrats have NOTHING to say? Part of the reason the Democrats are out of power is because they don't appear to believe in anything with any real conviction - the kind that says "even if we lose elections, even if we lose power, even if we are down in the polls, we will not compromise on these core beliefs."
We know what the core beliefs are for Republicans. They speak out against what they believe is wrong, regardless of popular opinion.
I only wish the Democrats could find that kind of conviction because a conversation on tough issues usually takes two.
"Balls!" cried the Queen. "If I had them, I'd be King!"
One of the most appalling developments during the national "conversation" on life, government and Terri Schiavo was the absence of any real debate. The religious right was vocal and aggressive in framing the issue as one about the sanctity of life. But the opposing view went almost without a sponsor.
There was the conspicuous absence of any compelling voice coming from the Democratic Party. Last Sunday when the debate reached the House of Representatives, Barney Frank was left to make the opposition's case practically alone. All of the so called leaders of the Democratic Party were silent.
It's not like they didn't have encouragement from public sentiment. By a margin of 63 percent to 28 percent, an ABC News poll said Americans supported removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and almost 70 percent resented Congress' involvement.
Even with those numbers, the Democrats were too timid to get involved.
It reminded me of the Iraq War and the 2004 election all over again. When the president coasted on stratospheric approval ratings and proposed a war, Democrats climbed over each other to fall in line and appear to be in step. Most overwhelmingly supported giving the president the power to go to war with Sadam Hussein, against their better judgments and counter to the will of their base.
Later when the war started going sour and Howard Dean's protest began to find traction, there was the parade of Democrats scurrying across the street. Later in the election, explaining their actions required the kind of spin that provided fertile ground for Republicans to plant seeds of doubt about their sincerity.
Here we go again. The nation is involved in a discussion about life, death, and the role of the government in our lives, and Democrats have NOTHING to say? Part of the reason the Democrats are out of power is because they don't appear to believe in anything with any real conviction - the kind that says "even if we lose elections, even if we lose power, even if we are down in the polls, we will not compromise on these core beliefs."
We know what the core beliefs are for Republicans. They speak out against what they believe is wrong, regardless of popular opinion.
I only wish the Democrats could find that kind of conviction because a conversation on tough issues usually takes two.
"Balls!" cried the Queen. "If I had them, I'd be King!"
Too cowardly for Canada
Even Canadians know a coward when they see one.
A board hearing Canada’s refugee cases rejected a bid Thursday for asylum by a U.S. Army deserter who refused to go Iraq, according to The Washington Post.
The board decided that the United States would not unfairly prosecute Jeremy Hinzman for refusing to serve in what he said was an illegal war.
The parachute-trained specialist served in Afghanistan but fled from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Canada in January 2004 after his unit, the 82nd Airborne Divi-sion, was given orders to deploy to Iraq.
But Hinzman couldn’t even escape to Canada, a favorite destination of deserters (who were drafted, by the way) during the Vietnam War. Canada said go back and take your punishment. Good for them. What Hinzman did was cowardly, and Canada was right to call him on it.
First, in this age of the all-volunteer force, nobody should be in the Army unless you have chosen to be there. Sure the recruiters are going to come by the house, offer you wheel barrows full of money, to mow your mom’s grass, wash your dad’s car, and tell your sister her dress is pretty.
But you don’t have to join.
In fact, as a public service to all the other Jeremy Hinzmans who might be contemplating signing up, I offer what should be common knowledge. Once you sign on the dotted line, they own you. If you don’t like war, don’t join the military. If you only like some wars but not others, don’t join the military. If you don’t like following orders, don’t join the military. If you don’t like the thought of deploying to dangerous places, don’t join the military.
If you do join the military, nobody will ever ask you again what your position is on any of those issues. As my drill sergeant used to say, “it’s mind over matter. I don’t mind, and you don’t matter.”
But Hinzman, 26, did join. When he did, he took an oath. Everyone who joins takes the same oath:
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers ap-pointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Hinzman took an oath that he would obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over him. He took a regular salary from the U.S. govern-ment. He more than likely took a cash bonus and money for college. And when it was time to pay it back, he ran.
Now I’m sure he and others will try to spin this as some sort of conscious, honorable form of disobedience. It isn’t.
The closest parallel I can find would be the civil disobedience articulated by American author Henry David Thoreau and made popular by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. There is a long history of civil disobedience used as a form of protest against governments.
Gandhi outlined about nine rules on how active civil disobedience should work, but one of the rules is particularly relevant.
A nonviolent protester is fully aware and accepts the consequences of his or her actions. In other words, Jeremy, they don’t run. They don’t take everything their government has to offer and disappear. If you have an issue with the war, stay here, make your point publicly and face your consequences like a man. That’s what Canada was telling him.
Anything less is just cowardly.
A board hearing Canada’s refugee cases rejected a bid Thursday for asylum by a U.S. Army deserter who refused to go Iraq, according to The Washington Post.
The board decided that the United States would not unfairly prosecute Jeremy Hinzman for refusing to serve in what he said was an illegal war.
The parachute-trained specialist served in Afghanistan but fled from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Canada in January 2004 after his unit, the 82nd Airborne Divi-sion, was given orders to deploy to Iraq.
But Hinzman couldn’t even escape to Canada, a favorite destination of deserters (who were drafted, by the way) during the Vietnam War. Canada said go back and take your punishment. Good for them. What Hinzman did was cowardly, and Canada was right to call him on it.
First, in this age of the all-volunteer force, nobody should be in the Army unless you have chosen to be there. Sure the recruiters are going to come by the house, offer you wheel barrows full of money, to mow your mom’s grass, wash your dad’s car, and tell your sister her dress is pretty.
But you don’t have to join.
In fact, as a public service to all the other Jeremy Hinzmans who might be contemplating signing up, I offer what should be common knowledge. Once you sign on the dotted line, they own you. If you don’t like war, don’t join the military. If you only like some wars but not others, don’t join the military. If you don’t like following orders, don’t join the military. If you don’t like the thought of deploying to dangerous places, don’t join the military.
If you do join the military, nobody will ever ask you again what your position is on any of those issues. As my drill sergeant used to say, “it’s mind over matter. I don’t mind, and you don’t matter.”
But Hinzman, 26, did join. When he did, he took an oath. Everyone who joins takes the same oath:
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers ap-pointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Hinzman took an oath that he would obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over him. He took a regular salary from the U.S. govern-ment. He more than likely took a cash bonus and money for college. And when it was time to pay it back, he ran.
Now I’m sure he and others will try to spin this as some sort of conscious, honorable form of disobedience. It isn’t.
The closest parallel I can find would be the civil disobedience articulated by American author Henry David Thoreau and made popular by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. There is a long history of civil disobedience used as a form of protest against governments.
Gandhi outlined about nine rules on how active civil disobedience should work, but one of the rules is particularly relevant.
“When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.”
A nonviolent protester is fully aware and accepts the consequences of his or her actions. In other words, Jeremy, they don’t run. They don’t take everything their government has to offer and disappear. If you have an issue with the war, stay here, make your point publicly and face your consequences like a man. That’s what Canada was telling him.
Anything less is just cowardly.
Terri Schiavo's unstudied life
This is by far the best effort at humanizing Terri Schiavo. It is a profile on the per-son...before her illness. Very well done.
LM
------
Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life
By Jennifer Frey
She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html?referrer=emailarticle
LM
------
Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life
By Jennifer Frey
She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html?referrer=emailarticle
God supports delay in Schiavo case?
According to Tom Delay, God was looking down at America -- at what Delay and the Christian conservatives were enduring from liberals, at Delay’s ethics problems, at just the overall direction the country was heading -- and God decided to intervene.
God also knew that down in Florida a woman named Terri Schiavo was at the center of a family feud between her husband and her parents. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by doctors who had treated her and as merely disabled by doctors who rented the video.
Terri’s husband, Michael, says that Terri told him that she never wanted to live like that. Terri’s parents say it doesn’t matter. And so they fought -- for years.
God, looking at the family fighting in Florida and Delay’s maladies in Washington, had the perfect answer.
“One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America” Delay told a group of Christian conservatives March 18.
What specifically? “Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against others,” Delay continued.
And so God brought Terri Schiavo to Delay, and the congressman and his colleagues took it from there. They created a new law so that the federal government could intervene. They summoned the president from his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign the law in his jammies.
They second guessed the doctors. They questioned Michael Schiavo’s motives. They turned the attention of all three branches of government, at the federal and state levels, on saving Terri.
It all seemed to be working. They had elevated the Schiavo case. Everybody was talking about Terri. Nobody was talking about the nasty ethics charges.
But the conversation still didn’t go Delay’s way. The public supported Terri Schiavo’s brother by 63 to 28 percent. What’s more, 70 percent opposed the federal government’s intervention. Even Republican voters disagreed with their party, by a 58 to 39 percent margin, and evangelicals disagreed by a 50 to 44 percent margin.
It seems Americans felt Delay’s actions were based more on selfishness and than compassion or caring. A CBS News poll found that 13 percent of Americans think Congress intervened out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.
Perhaps Delay was right. Terri Schiavo “helped elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Just like Delay said. Just like God wanted.
“We shouldn't worry so much about whether God is on our side as about whether we're on His.”
-Ronald Reagan
God also knew that down in Florida a woman named Terri Schiavo was at the center of a family feud between her husband and her parents. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by doctors who had treated her and as merely disabled by doctors who rented the video.
Terri’s husband, Michael, says that Terri told him that she never wanted to live like that. Terri’s parents say it doesn’t matter. And so they fought -- for years.
God, looking at the family fighting in Florida and Delay’s maladies in Washington, had the perfect answer.
“One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America” Delay told a group of Christian conservatives March 18.
What specifically? “Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against others,” Delay continued.
And so God brought Terri Schiavo to Delay, and the congressman and his colleagues took it from there. They created a new law so that the federal government could intervene. They summoned the president from his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign the law in his jammies.
They second guessed the doctors. They questioned Michael Schiavo’s motives. They turned the attention of all three branches of government, at the federal and state levels, on saving Terri.
It all seemed to be working. They had elevated the Schiavo case. Everybody was talking about Terri. Nobody was talking about the nasty ethics charges.
But the conversation still didn’t go Delay’s way. The public supported Terri Schiavo’s brother by 63 to 28 percent. What’s more, 70 percent opposed the federal government’s intervention. Even Republican voters disagreed with their party, by a 58 to 39 percent margin, and evangelicals disagreed by a 50 to 44 percent margin.
It seems Americans felt Delay’s actions were based more on selfishness and than compassion or caring. A CBS News poll found that 13 percent of Americans think Congress intervened out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.
Perhaps Delay was right. Terri Schiavo “helped elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Just like Delay said. Just like God wanted.
“We shouldn't worry so much about whether God is on our side as about whether we're on His.”
-Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Who's looking at the man in the mirror?
Someone needs to give Michael Jackson a copy of his “Bad” album and tell him to listen to track #7.
There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”
In the song, the self-proclaimed King of Pop croons:
As I watch the spectacle that Michael Jackson has become, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror. I know what most of us see, but what does he see?
I’ve come to the conclusion that while most people slow down to gawk at a car wreck, some people enjoy being the car wreck. That was Michael: serial plastic surgeries, the chimp, living in the bubble, and of course, the Peter Pan fascination.
He’s enjoyed watching us slow down and gawk. He created this appetite in us to see how far he would go. What will Michael do next? And he has to keep taking it to the next level. For someone like him who grew up in the fish bowl and on stage, the worst thing that could happen is that people stop paying attention. We speed by without slowing down. The car wreck has become part of the landscape.
And as he continues to create absurdity for attention, he doesn’t realize how pathetic he has now become.
There was Michael singing to us about the man in the mirror, but it doesn’t appear that he has done any of the difficult soul searching he urged us to do in his sappy songs.
I guess royalty requires no reflection to acknowledge its own greatness. Besides, all the loyal subjects, the entourage, the trappings, they all reinforce what he intrinsically believes.
Surely somebody in that crew could tell him what he refuses to see. Perhaps the umbrella man could also hold up a small mirror once he is indoors and relieved of his duties. Surely someone could be close enough to him to be able to grab him by his fragile neck and shake him. Perhaps if he had forged a real relationship with an adult there might be a better chance of that happening.
Fine. I’ll do it. Michael! How did you get here?! You KNEW they were coming after you. You KNEW they would try to justify the failure of the old child molestation charges. Why were you holding a young boy’s hand on TV? Why in the world are you sleeping in the same bed with them? STOP! What in the world is motivating you?
The Jessica Lunsford incident has given us an opportunity to peer into the mind of a pedophile. It turns out most of them know they are wrong but just can’t help themselves. Is that Michael?
I've narrowed the oddity of Michael Jackson to one of two conclusions. Either he is innocent and clueless or guilty and helpless. Either he created a car wreck that got out of control, or he got out of control and created a car wreck. Either way, he can’t begin to address it without heeding the message in his own music.
Hey Mike, track #7.
There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”
In the song, the self-proclaimed King of Pop croons:
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change
As I watch the spectacle that Michael Jackson has become, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror. I know what most of us see, but what does he see?
I’ve come to the conclusion that while most people slow down to gawk at a car wreck, some people enjoy being the car wreck. That was Michael: serial plastic surgeries, the chimp, living in the bubble, and of course, the Peter Pan fascination.
He’s enjoyed watching us slow down and gawk. He created this appetite in us to see how far he would go. What will Michael do next? And he has to keep taking it to the next level. For someone like him who grew up in the fish bowl and on stage, the worst thing that could happen is that people stop paying attention. We speed by without slowing down. The car wreck has become part of the landscape.
And as he continues to create absurdity for attention, he doesn’t realize how pathetic he has now become.
There was Michael singing to us about the man in the mirror, but it doesn’t appear that he has done any of the difficult soul searching he urged us to do in his sappy songs.
I guess royalty requires no reflection to acknowledge its own greatness. Besides, all the loyal subjects, the entourage, the trappings, they all reinforce what he intrinsically believes.
Surely somebody in that crew could tell him what he refuses to see. Perhaps the umbrella man could also hold up a small mirror once he is indoors and relieved of his duties. Surely someone could be close enough to him to be able to grab him by his fragile neck and shake him. Perhaps if he had forged a real relationship with an adult there might be a better chance of that happening.
Fine. I’ll do it. Michael! How did you get here?! You KNEW they were coming after you. You KNEW they would try to justify the failure of the old child molestation charges. Why were you holding a young boy’s hand on TV? Why in the world are you sleeping in the same bed with them? STOP! What in the world is motivating you?
The Jessica Lunsford incident has given us an opportunity to peer into the mind of a pedophile. It turns out most of them know they are wrong but just can’t help themselves. Is that Michael?
I've narrowed the oddity of Michael Jackson to one of two conclusions. Either he is innocent and clueless or guilty and helpless. Either he created a car wreck that got out of control, or he got out of control and created a car wreck. Either way, he can’t begin to address it without heeding the message in his own music.
Hey Mike, track #7.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Two Years and Still No Super Bowl
What do the New England Patriots and the War in Iraq have in common with millions of Americans? I'll tell you in a minute. Stick with me.
Last weekend, the president reminded us that the Iraqi war reached its two-year milestone. It's hard to believe that two full years have elapsed since we first saw the orange streaks across the Iraqi night sky and became acquainted with the term "shock and awe."
In two years, the country experienced an emotional journey. We mourned with families of fallen soldiers and shared in the exhilaration of Iraqi voters. We will always remember the images of Sadam's statue falling as well as Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.
The anniversary is not only a good time to reflect on where we've been but to assess what we have achieved. In his radio address March 19, President Bush laid out three accomplishments.
Lodged in those three measurements are legitimate reasons for Bush to be commended but also reasons why widespread acceptance of the war has eluded him.
It's easy to verify the first two points of measurement. Did we disarm a brutal regime? We all saw the statue fall, the leader captured, and the people vote. Check that one off.
What about free its people? "In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections," Bush reported. "This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq."
Not many of those facts are in dispute either.
The third point, "defend the world from grave danger," still remains the subject of heated debate. Critics remind us that the weapons of mass destruction never materialized and nothing more concrete than Sadam's "intent" was offered as evidence of grave danger. I think it's fair to conclude that we are far from consensus on that point.
The administration complains that the media and Americans don't give them enough credit for their victories in Iraq. They are probably right. Bush can rightly claim that they have freed 25 million people from oppressive grip of an Iraqi dictatorship. In Iraq, schools and hospitals are open. The economy is improving.
These are all laudable achievements, but I still have one nagging question after reading them.
So what?
I'm happy for the progress, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily quality of life. It's like watching another city's team win the Super Bowl.
I grew up in Louisiana, which pretty much makes me an oddity outside of the state's borders. Why? I'm a Saints fan. There aren't many of us Saints fans out-side of Louisiana unless you count the support groups. Each year, we get all revved up with the promise that this year will be our year. Each year, we have our hopes dashed. Last year, we came to the brink of the playoffs only to see opportunity evaporate during the last minutes of one of the last games of the last week of the regular season.
I watched with interest as the New England Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. I can understand the excitement of New Englanders as they claimed an-other Vince Lombardi trophy (after all, LSU did win a national championship two years ago). But other than that, I didn't care. It wasn't the Saints.
That's how I feel watching Iraqis celebrate voting and new schools. I would much rather see residents of the District of Columbia vote. I would much rather see the schools in my county improve. I'm happy for Iraqis who do enjoy these accomplishments, but I'm not personally invested in them.
What would it take to get personally invested? Tell me what's in it for me -- which brings us back to the third point of measurement. The third accomplishment, "defend the world from danger," is the only one that can make Iraqi successes relevant to everyday Americans. Yet, it is the only accomplishment the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate in a convincing way.
Until they make the case for the third measurement, or prove to me why I should care, they will have a hard time generating my excitement for the first two.
What do the New England Patriots and the Iraqi War have in common with the lives of millions of Americans? Absolutely nothing. And until you convince me that they do, I'll reserve my excitement for the promise of a new Saints season. Good for your New England. Good for you Iraq. Geaux Saints!
Last weekend, the president reminded us that the Iraqi war reached its two-year milestone. It's hard to believe that two full years have elapsed since we first saw the orange streaks across the Iraqi night sky and became acquainted with the term "shock and awe."
In two years, the country experienced an emotional journey. We mourned with families of fallen soldiers and shared in the exhilaration of Iraqi voters. We will always remember the images of Sadam's statue falling as well as Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.
The anniversary is not only a good time to reflect on where we've been but to assess what we have achieved. In his radio address March 19, President Bush laid out three accomplishments.
"On the this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from grave danger," Bush said.
Lodged in those three measurements are legitimate reasons for Bush to be commended but also reasons why widespread acceptance of the war has eluded him.
It's easy to verify the first two points of measurement. Did we disarm a brutal regime? We all saw the statue fall, the leader captured, and the people vote. Check that one off.
What about free its people? "In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections," Bush reported. "This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq."
Not many of those facts are in dispute either.
The third point, "defend the world from grave danger," still remains the subject of heated debate. Critics remind us that the weapons of mass destruction never materialized and nothing more concrete than Sadam's "intent" was offered as evidence of grave danger. I think it's fair to conclude that we are far from consensus on that point.
The administration complains that the media and Americans don't give them enough credit for their victories in Iraq. They are probably right. Bush can rightly claim that they have freed 25 million people from oppressive grip of an Iraqi dictatorship. In Iraq, schools and hospitals are open. The economy is improving.
These are all laudable achievements, but I still have one nagging question after reading them.
So what?
I'm happy for the progress, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily quality of life. It's like watching another city's team win the Super Bowl.
I grew up in Louisiana, which pretty much makes me an oddity outside of the state's borders. Why? I'm a Saints fan. There aren't many of us Saints fans out-side of Louisiana unless you count the support groups. Each year, we get all revved up with the promise that this year will be our year. Each year, we have our hopes dashed. Last year, we came to the brink of the playoffs only to see opportunity evaporate during the last minutes of one of the last games of the last week of the regular season.
I watched with interest as the New England Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. I can understand the excitement of New Englanders as they claimed an-other Vince Lombardi trophy (after all, LSU did win a national championship two years ago). But other than that, I didn't care. It wasn't the Saints.
That's how I feel watching Iraqis celebrate voting and new schools. I would much rather see residents of the District of Columbia vote. I would much rather see the schools in my county improve. I'm happy for Iraqis who do enjoy these accomplishments, but I'm not personally invested in them.
What would it take to get personally invested? Tell me what's in it for me -- which brings us back to the third point of measurement. The third accomplishment, "defend the world from danger," is the only one that can make Iraqi successes relevant to everyday Americans. Yet, it is the only accomplishment the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate in a convincing way.
Until they make the case for the third measurement, or prove to me why I should care, they will have a hard time generating my excitement for the first two.
What do the New England Patriots and the Iraqi War have in common with the lives of millions of Americans? Absolutely nothing. And until you convince me that they do, I'll reserve my excitement for the promise of a new Saints season. Good for your New England. Good for you Iraq. Geaux Saints!
Friday, March 18, 2005
The Steroid Show strikes out (and other annoying sports puns)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43422-2005Mar17.html
Question: If an athlete testifies about steroids and no cameras capture it, will we have to worry about any more athletes testifying?
It’s a silly question, I know, because there is no way we could have realistically expected TV news cameras to ignore this spectacle. The lure of baseball’s best, elbow-to-elbow, scowling and sobbing, proved irresistible to most Americans, whether they were baseball fans or not. So the cameras lined up, the politicians pontificated, and the players evaded. Reporters fired sports clichés faster and less accurately than a Curt Schilling fastball. The steroid show was in full swing.
Was any of this news? I’m sure there are a million ways to justify coverage, but did we learn anything useful?
Well, just in case you started pondering any of these questions, Congress of-fered up this convenient rationalization: This is for the kids.
That’s right. Mark McGwire and company were hauled in front of The House Government Reform Committee to set an example to kids all over. Listen up kids, if you take steroids, you might break baseball’s most cherished records but you will eventually face a day of embarrassment in front of our nation’s legislators. Scared straight now?
Here’s an idea: if you really want to scare kids off of steroids, make baseball players show us how the drugs really affect them.
According to webmd.com, men who use steroids might develop breasts, have their testicles shrink, experience impotency, become bald, get acne, and de-velop jaundice. Now those are real deterrents not to mention great TV. Let the cameras line up to see Mark McGwire with breasts. So Jose Canseco isn’t bald yet, but there is a long line of other effects that we could explore with parental warning. Are those pimples on your back, Sammy?
But no…. We have to suffer through politicians asking the tough ones: Do you think using steroids is cheating? Are you kidding? You subpoena star sluggers under the guise of serving the public and you inquire, “Is it cheating?”
Why are the networks even covering that? During the political conventions, broadcast networks boycotted much of the proceedings because they bemoaned them as being too boring and too scripted. Can’t we apply the same standard here? Please? For the kids?
I guarantee you if the athletes testify and no cameras show up, Congress will move on to real work.
Question: If an athlete testifies about steroids and no cameras capture it, will we have to worry about any more athletes testifying?
It’s a silly question, I know, because there is no way we could have realistically expected TV news cameras to ignore this spectacle. The lure of baseball’s best, elbow-to-elbow, scowling and sobbing, proved irresistible to most Americans, whether they were baseball fans or not. So the cameras lined up, the politicians pontificated, and the players evaded. Reporters fired sports clichés faster and less accurately than a Curt Schilling fastball. The steroid show was in full swing.
Was any of this news? I’m sure there are a million ways to justify coverage, but did we learn anything useful?
Well, just in case you started pondering any of these questions, Congress of-fered up this convenient rationalization: This is for the kids.
That’s right. Mark McGwire and company were hauled in front of The House Government Reform Committee to set an example to kids all over. Listen up kids, if you take steroids, you might break baseball’s most cherished records but you will eventually face a day of embarrassment in front of our nation’s legislators. Scared straight now?
Here’s an idea: if you really want to scare kids off of steroids, make baseball players show us how the drugs really affect them.
According to webmd.com, men who use steroids might develop breasts, have their testicles shrink, experience impotency, become bald, get acne, and de-velop jaundice. Now those are real deterrents not to mention great TV. Let the cameras line up to see Mark McGwire with breasts. So Jose Canseco isn’t bald yet, but there is a long line of other effects that we could explore with parental warning. Are those pimples on your back, Sammy?
But no…. We have to suffer through politicians asking the tough ones: Do you think using steroids is cheating? Are you kidding? You subpoena star sluggers under the guise of serving the public and you inquire, “Is it cheating?”
Why are the networks even covering that? During the political conventions, broadcast networks boycotted much of the proceedings because they bemoaned them as being too boring and too scripted. Can’t we apply the same standard here? Please? For the kids?
I guarantee you if the athletes testify and no cameras show up, Congress will move on to real work.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Anything a man can do
It was a moment that passed mostly without notice, partly with a bit of cynicism.
In one of the news conferences following the Brian Nichols murder spree, a re-porter asked why a woman was guarding a male prisoner.
The response: because a woman can do anything a man can do.
I must admit I rolled my eyes as I knew that answer had been scripted on official talking points somewhere. Some PC do gooder scribbled the words knowing they would come in handy during the crisis.
Of course women deserve equal opportunities. Of course any person performing the same service is entitled to equal pay and promotions. Of course I expect that if a woman was hired for a job, she should be expected to do it the same as any other person drawing the same salary with the same job description.
But as we heard over and over, here was 5 foot grandmother asked to guard a 6 foot 210 pound ex football player, who happened to be a black belt.
Anything?
The answer revealed itself over the course of the ordeal. First came the news that Nichols was being apprehended. Then we saw the image of Nichols being escorted out of the apartment complex by a woman. It seemed like a quiet, de-fiant moment. But the truth wasn’t revealed in that photo op.
The truth we learned from 26-year-old Ashley Smith.
Smith recalled being held “captive” for hours, in a plain spoken, compelling manner. She told how she was accosted by a nervous, trigger-happy killer and subdued him without ever laying a finger on him.
In appealing to Nichols’ humanity, Smith helped transform the aggressor into a man who realized his mistake, asked for help, and surrendered without inci-dent.
In the end, a woman brought down the same killer who was practically freed by one. She did it with the quiet strength that was probably more effective than trying to physically overpower the suspect.
The chief says a woman can do anything a man can do. He may be right, but could a man have done what Smith did?
Would he?
In one of the news conferences following the Brian Nichols murder spree, a re-porter asked why a woman was guarding a male prisoner.
The response: because a woman can do anything a man can do.
I must admit I rolled my eyes as I knew that answer had been scripted on official talking points somewhere. Some PC do gooder scribbled the words knowing they would come in handy during the crisis.
Of course women deserve equal opportunities. Of course any person performing the same service is entitled to equal pay and promotions. Of course I expect that if a woman was hired for a job, she should be expected to do it the same as any other person drawing the same salary with the same job description.
But as we heard over and over, here was 5 foot grandmother asked to guard a 6 foot 210 pound ex football player, who happened to be a black belt.
Anything?
The answer revealed itself over the course of the ordeal. First came the news that Nichols was being apprehended. Then we saw the image of Nichols being escorted out of the apartment complex by a woman. It seemed like a quiet, de-fiant moment. But the truth wasn’t revealed in that photo op.
The truth we learned from 26-year-old Ashley Smith.
Smith recalled being held “captive” for hours, in a plain spoken, compelling manner. She told how she was accosted by a nervous, trigger-happy killer and subdued him without ever laying a finger on him.
In appealing to Nichols’ humanity, Smith helped transform the aggressor into a man who realized his mistake, asked for help, and surrendered without inci-dent.
In the end, a woman brought down the same killer who was practically freed by one. She did it with the quiet strength that was probably more effective than trying to physically overpower the suspect.
The chief says a woman can do anything a man can do. He may be right, but could a man have done what Smith did?
Would he?
Sunday, March 6, 2005
Punishing pedophiles
What's a suitable punishment for someone who would sneak into a neighbor's house, kidnap a 9-year-old girl, violate her, kill her and bury her in the yard?
On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.
Police recovered the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford around 3:30 this morning using information supplied by John Evander Couey, a former neighbor and registered sex offender. The discovery ended a mystery that captured the nation's attention ever since the young girl was discovered missing from her bedroom on Feb. 24.
It's hard not to share the devastation of Jessica's parents, Mark Lunsford and Angela Bryant. From all accounts, Jessica was a special child. Her father and grandparents say she would always ask permission before leaving the house. Jessica laid the next day's school clothes out before going to bed. She woke herself up with her own alarm clock. She regularly attended church. She was a good kid.
I remember thinking that she sounded almost perfect. Speaking as one who has raised a 9 year old, I would pay good money to get those kinds of results. No person deserves such a horrific fate, but it seems even more tragic when it happens to a child — especially one who exhibits that level of responsibility and maturity at such a young age. With a start like that, Jessica had to be on the road to great things.
But now she has been derailed from that path.
In the hierarchy of crimes, pedophilia ought to occupy a special place. If ever there was an express lane to hell, pedophiles should have reserved seating.
Unfortunately, the plight of Mark Lunsford is not an uncommon one. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in a one-year period, 797,500 children were reported missing. That is an average of 2,100 children reported missing each day. What's more, 198,300 children were involuntarily missing, lost, or injured over the course of a year. Nonfamily members abducted 58,200 children in the same time period.
Thousands of parents empathize with Mark Lunsford's tragedy tonight.
But what do we do with the convicted predators? John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping and killing Jessica Lunsford. Priests around the country are admitting or are being convicted of preying on young parishioners. And these are the few cases that attract media attention. Thousands of people like Couey are plotting to take someone else's child tonight.
Many people take quiet pleasure in knowing that the prison code will exact a certain level of revenge.
They nodded with satisfaction when a fellow inmate beat serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to death with a lead pipe. You remember Dahmer gained infamy by killing 17 young men between 1978 and 1991. The prevailing wisdom was that the system worked, even if it was unofficial.
We shouldn't have to depend on vigilante prison justice, however. What John Evander Couey did was vile. His punishment should be severe enough to dis-courage any other potential pedophiles from violating another child.
But Congress spent the week meddling in a major league dispute between labor and management and refereeing a family feud that was being adjudicated in the state courts. I don't mean to trivialize those issues, but I'm not convinced they needed Congressional intervention.
Here's an issue that does. I'm not usually a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm willing to break with my longstanding objections for the John Couey's of the world. A conviction of child molestation or pedophilia should bring a response that is quick and severe. In the majority of those convictions, the sentence should be death.
That law should be enacted at the federal level. There should be no escape across a state line for a convicted sex offender. They shouldn't have the opportunity to move across the street from a 9-year-old child, unbeknownst to the parents, and plot. This is a case for zero tolerance. On the first offense, pedophiles go behind bars for life. When it fits, they go behind bars to await death.
Members of Congress, this is an issue to get outraged about. Pass a law. Send a message. Do something useful.
On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.
Police recovered the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford around 3:30 this morning using information supplied by John Evander Couey, a former neighbor and registered sex offender. The discovery ended a mystery that captured the nation's attention ever since the young girl was discovered missing from her bedroom on Feb. 24.
It's hard not to share the devastation of Jessica's parents, Mark Lunsford and Angela Bryant. From all accounts, Jessica was a special child. Her father and grandparents say she would always ask permission before leaving the house. Jessica laid the next day's school clothes out before going to bed. She woke herself up with her own alarm clock. She regularly attended church. She was a good kid.
I remember thinking that she sounded almost perfect. Speaking as one who has raised a 9 year old, I would pay good money to get those kinds of results. No person deserves such a horrific fate, but it seems even more tragic when it happens to a child — especially one who exhibits that level of responsibility and maturity at such a young age. With a start like that, Jessica had to be on the road to great things.
But now she has been derailed from that path.
In the hierarchy of crimes, pedophilia ought to occupy a special place. If ever there was an express lane to hell, pedophiles should have reserved seating.
Unfortunately, the plight of Mark Lunsford is not an uncommon one. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in a one-year period, 797,500 children were reported missing. That is an average of 2,100 children reported missing each day. What's more, 198,300 children were involuntarily missing, lost, or injured over the course of a year. Nonfamily members abducted 58,200 children in the same time period.
Thousands of parents empathize with Mark Lunsford's tragedy tonight.
But what do we do with the convicted predators? John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping and killing Jessica Lunsford. Priests around the country are admitting or are being convicted of preying on young parishioners. And these are the few cases that attract media attention. Thousands of people like Couey are plotting to take someone else's child tonight.
Many people take quiet pleasure in knowing that the prison code will exact a certain level of revenge.
They nodded with satisfaction when a fellow inmate beat serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to death with a lead pipe. You remember Dahmer gained infamy by killing 17 young men between 1978 and 1991. The prevailing wisdom was that the system worked, even if it was unofficial.
We shouldn't have to depend on vigilante prison justice, however. What John Evander Couey did was vile. His punishment should be severe enough to dis-courage any other potential pedophiles from violating another child.
But Congress spent the week meddling in a major league dispute between labor and management and refereeing a family feud that was being adjudicated in the state courts. I don't mean to trivialize those issues, but I'm not convinced they needed Congressional intervention.
Here's an issue that does. I'm not usually a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm willing to break with my longstanding objections for the John Couey's of the world. A conviction of child molestation or pedophilia should bring a response that is quick and severe. In the majority of those convictions, the sentence should be death.
That law should be enacted at the federal level. There should be no escape across a state line for a convicted sex offender. They shouldn't have the opportunity to move across the street from a 9-year-old child, unbeknownst to the parents, and plot. This is a case for zero tolerance. On the first offense, pedophiles go behind bars for life. When it fits, they go behind bars to await death.
Members of Congress, this is an issue to get outraged about. Pass a law. Send a message. Do something useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)