In the midst of all the fuss about whether or not Jennifer Wilbanks is selfish or misunderstood, you can get an important cue from her parents.
Last week, when Jennifer was missing and presumed dead, the family lined up three deep for a news conference where they tearfully begged the community for its help.
Deluth, Ga., responded with over 100 volunteers forming search parties that worked around the clock to find the missing bride. Of course, now we've learned that Jennifer skipped town in an attempt to side step the wedding.
Since returning home, there's been a small chorus rising that Jennifer was just acting selfishly and should realize some consequence for her choices. Expect it to continue its crescendo. Why? The family has been unable to muster the one thing that could possibly work to dampen this feeling of betrayal, an apology. It's been almost 48 hours since her discovery and we've heard nothing from the family.
Jennifer is supposed to hold a news conference to say something, sometime. We know she's crazy, but what I find odd is that we've not heard a word from her parents. These are the same people who mobilized their community in what turned out to be a hoax, and now they are silent. Nothing more to say? How about sorry. How about thank you.
With all the family members who were free to line up when they thought Jennifer was missing, you'd think ONE of them could find the time now that she's surfaced. They wouldn't even have to turn on her. They could say something like this.
"Last week we prayed that Jennifer would return to us alive, and she did. For that we are extremely grateful. Even if a wound is self-inflicted, we still count our blessings when it isn't fatal. Last week, we asked for our community's help, and we were overwhelmed with the response. We always thought of our community as a family and last week, at our lowest point, you proved us right.
Sometimes in families, our family members disappoint us. In those times, we try to teach, practice and pray for forgiveness, healing, and love. This is a time where we've been obviously disappointed. We ask you to show the same forgiveness, healing, and love that we would give to any other person in our family who has disappointed us.
There is still much we need to learn, to get to the root causes and begin the process of recovery. We ask for your prayers as we undertake that journey. Finally, in this world that we live in, it could be an unfortunate reality that someone else in this community may need to call on your generosity and sup-port for a family member who might be missing. We all hope and pray that our situation will not dampen the spirit of love that we experienced. You can count on us to be in the number volunteering our support should that occur. Thanks again for your support and love. You make us proud to be citizens of Deluth."
See how easy that was. But we still haven't heard any reasonable facsimile. And if the parents don't have the decency to apologize, how can you expect the daughter to?
There's an old saying, "the fruit don't fall far from the tree.
Monday, May 2, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
Why the 'Capital' Checks Won't Clear
It seems George Bush has exhausted his political capital.
You might remember in the wake of his presidential election victory, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed his new mandate.
“I earned political capital, and I intend to spend it,” proclaimed the newly-reelected president.
President Bush then got out his executive check book and presidential pen and proceeded to spend his capital on Social Security, judicial nominees, and an energy policy, to name a few items on his shopping list.
He should have confirmed the balance in his political capital account, because it seems President Bush’s love bank didn’t have as big a deposit as he thought.
According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans are rejecting the president’s proposals, and his standing is at an all time low.
The numbers tell a story few could have predicted. This week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll put the president’s overall job approval score at 47 percent — matching the lowest score of his 51 months in office. In the survey highly negative ratings outnumbered the very positive 3-to-2.
On the issues, President Bush was also hurting. His signature proposal, Social Security, has not excited most Americans in a way that the administration would have liked. Only three in 10 respondents approved of the job the president is doing on Social Security, and the momentum is moving in the wrong direction. In mid-March, 56 percent favored private accounts. Now that number is down to 45 percent, an 11 percent plunge.
If things weren’t bad enough, it seems the Republican Party has also been siphoning funds from the political capital account. Tom Delay’s ethics troubles, the party’s decision to change the ethics rules, and the midnight intervention in the Terry Schiavo situation, all contributed to the account depletion.
That’s assuming there was that much capital to begin with.
What if the president really didn’t have political capital after the election? It’s not like he hasn’t been wrong about anything before.
During the election, the president ran on John Kerry’s record. His basic message was “at least I’m not that guy.”
That guy, John Kerry, proved indecisive, impersonal, and clueless. It was easy to paint a caricature of him. Let’s face it, John Kerry turned off or scared many Americans, and for the ones he didn’t, Theresa was there to pick up the slack.
So Americans agreed. “You’re right, we don’t want that guy.”
To win by default doesn’t necessarily endow the victor with spoils, however.
In fact, most Americans had no clue what the president’s new agenda would be, since he ran largely on Terrorism. Even at the Inauguration, President Bush talked about spreading democracy, not reforming Social Security.
So when the president attempted to enact his bold agenda, he ran into a couple problems:
1) No one had actually voted for that agenda in the last election.
2) His good will was confined to Terrorism and to not being John Kerry.
When the economy started eclipsing terrorism in the minds of most Americans, and he didn’t have Sen. Kerry to kick around any more, he learned the harsh truth:
Dear Mr. Bush, we regret to inform you that the check you presented to your Political Capital account is being returned due to insufficient funds.
Damn.
You might remember in the wake of his presidential election victory, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed his new mandate.
“I earned political capital, and I intend to spend it,” proclaimed the newly-reelected president.
President Bush then got out his executive check book and presidential pen and proceeded to spend his capital on Social Security, judicial nominees, and an energy policy, to name a few items on his shopping list.
He should have confirmed the balance in his political capital account, because it seems President Bush’s love bank didn’t have as big a deposit as he thought.
According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans are rejecting the president’s proposals, and his standing is at an all time low.
The numbers tell a story few could have predicted. This week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll put the president’s overall job approval score at 47 percent — matching the lowest score of his 51 months in office. In the survey highly negative ratings outnumbered the very positive 3-to-2.
On the issues, President Bush was also hurting. His signature proposal, Social Security, has not excited most Americans in a way that the administration would have liked. Only three in 10 respondents approved of the job the president is doing on Social Security, and the momentum is moving in the wrong direction. In mid-March, 56 percent favored private accounts. Now that number is down to 45 percent, an 11 percent plunge.
If things weren’t bad enough, it seems the Republican Party has also been siphoning funds from the political capital account. Tom Delay’s ethics troubles, the party’s decision to change the ethics rules, and the midnight intervention in the Terry Schiavo situation, all contributed to the account depletion.
That’s assuming there was that much capital to begin with.
What if the president really didn’t have political capital after the election? It’s not like he hasn’t been wrong about anything before.
During the election, the president ran on John Kerry’s record. His basic message was “at least I’m not that guy.”
That guy, John Kerry, proved indecisive, impersonal, and clueless. It was easy to paint a caricature of him. Let’s face it, John Kerry turned off or scared many Americans, and for the ones he didn’t, Theresa was there to pick up the slack.
So Americans agreed. “You’re right, we don’t want that guy.”
To win by default doesn’t necessarily endow the victor with spoils, however.
In fact, most Americans had no clue what the president’s new agenda would be, since he ran largely on Terrorism. Even at the Inauguration, President Bush talked about spreading democracy, not reforming Social Security.
So when the president attempted to enact his bold agenda, he ran into a couple problems:
1) No one had actually voted for that agenda in the last election.
2) His good will was confined to Terrorism and to not being John Kerry.
When the economy started eclipsing terrorism in the minds of most Americans, and he didn’t have Sen. Kerry to kick around any more, he learned the harsh truth:
Dear Mr. Bush, we regret to inform you that the check you presented to your Political Capital account is being returned due to insufficient funds.
Damn.
The terrorism high
For George Bush, it’s looking like 2001 all over again — the pre-9/11 2001.
In his first term, President Bush was off to an awful start. Down in the polls, pushing an unpopular agenda, dodging charges that he was the clueless puppet of the vice president.
Then a terrorism attack and a bullhorn changed everything. You know the cliché: September 11, 2001 changed everything. And for George Bush it did. It gave him an issue, a cause, and a reason to be. He assembled both houses of Congress and gave an electrifying speech to the nation. At that moment, he was presidential.
President Bush and the country were on a terrorism high. We were united in a common tragedy against a common enemy. The flag was in vogue. Congress was singing in unison. But it is hard to sustain that level of energy indefinitely, and fatigue began to set in.
Anyone who works with addicts will tell you, after the first “hit,” users spend their lives chasing the euphoria of that first high.
Americans have notoriously short memories, so something else had to sustain the terrorism high that buoyed the president. The answer: the Global War on Terrorism — first stop Afghanistan. After that, Iraq. Then there was the high drama of the election, which provided the perfect opportunity to remind us all about the evils of terrorism and the perils of retreat.
Now with the economy sinking, the high is wearing off, and Americans are looking at the president with sober eyes. It is starting to feel like 2001 all over again.
Forget rehab. Brace yourself for the next hit.
In his first term, President Bush was off to an awful start. Down in the polls, pushing an unpopular agenda, dodging charges that he was the clueless puppet of the vice president.
Then a terrorism attack and a bullhorn changed everything. You know the cliché: September 11, 2001 changed everything. And for George Bush it did. It gave him an issue, a cause, and a reason to be. He assembled both houses of Congress and gave an electrifying speech to the nation. At that moment, he was presidential.
President Bush and the country were on a terrorism high. We were united in a common tragedy against a common enemy. The flag was in vogue. Congress was singing in unison. But it is hard to sustain that level of energy indefinitely, and fatigue began to set in.
Anyone who works with addicts will tell you, after the first “hit,” users spend their lives chasing the euphoria of that first high.
Americans have notoriously short memories, so something else had to sustain the terrorism high that buoyed the president. The answer: the Global War on Terrorism — first stop Afghanistan. After that, Iraq. Then there was the high drama of the election, which provided the perfect opportunity to remind us all about the evils of terrorism and the perils of retreat.
Now with the economy sinking, the high is wearing off, and Americans are looking at the president with sober eyes. It is starting to feel like 2001 all over again.
Forget rehab. Brace yourself for the next hit.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Will kill for life
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.”
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
