An update and some facts

A few days ago, when I wrote about the second debate, I made some observations on abortion.  Specifically, I was perplexed about why President Bush is seemingly so quick to make the abortion topic the partial-birth abortion topic.  I questioned how many abortions were partial-birth, and guessed that it wasn't a lot.  It was late at night and I said that I did not feel like doing the necessary research then.

I have now.  Here's what I found:

-"Partial birth" is a political term created by pro-life groups.  The medical profession calls these procedures D&X, for "dialation and extraction."

-Estimates are that there were 1.3 million abortions performed in the United States last year.  Of that number, it is also estimated that .25% of the procedures were so called "partial birth."  If that is accurate that equates to 3250 partial birth abortions in the country last year.

-It is impossible to accurately peg the number of PBA's done, for several reasons.  First, it is assumed that some doctors that perform this procedure report it as "regular" abortions.  Also, not all areas of the country report abortions by category.

After reading several reports on this procedure, I came to a couple of conclusions.  I had an extremely difficult time processing what exactly happens during a PBA.  It is horrific, and I can't imagine ever being in a place of mind where I could perform one.  I also realize that there are few, if any, "impartial" websites dealing with this issue.  The tone of description varied according to which pro (life or choice) the site supported.

Common sense and decency should lead us to believe that PBA should not be used unless absolutely necessary.  I am repulsed by the thought of someone opting to have this procedure done simply because they do not want the baby for any other reason other than health.  I did receive the impression that PBA is used mostly when the mother's health is in danger or the fetus has already died or will not survive to term (the affliction I saw the most mentioned here is "hydrocephalus"). 

My opinion has not changed, I suppose, though I do feel that those who continually change the focus of abortion to partial-birth abortion (Bush and Alan Keyes, to name two) are using the small amount of times that it is used to paint the entire subject as wrong and immoral.  That's like slaughtering all cattle worldwide to eliminate the possibility of mad cow disease.

Any pro-life legislation has to have clauses allowing abortion for life's sake.  And I realize the double entendre of that sentence, but I can't put it any other way.  Pregnancy can't be a death sentence.

And the last shall be first

I'm wondering what to do about last night's debate.  Do I go at it full throttle or do I gently let it go as the end of hostilities?  I tried something different yesterday, writing down notes as I watched along with any pithy comments I could come up with then, and think maybe it'd be better just to list my reactions as bullet points:

-W denies he said that he doesn't worry about bin Laden anymore.  Even I remember that he said that, and a quick Internet search shows that he made those remarks on March 13, 2002.

-Love the look on Bush's face when he is asked the question about flu shots, and he completely bombs it-"um, er, we relied on a British company..." perfect rumbling, bumbling, stumbling; clearly he did not see that coming.  And once again, later Internet search reveals that he is wrong when he says that the administration stopped the contaminated vaccines from being shipped.  It was the British that did so.  What I don't undertstand about this is that there were shortages last year, so why not make sure it doesn't happen this year?  Why not make sure there is a surplus so that everyone in the country can be immunized. 

-Bush attacks Kerry as being so liberal that Ted Kennedy is consdered the conservative Mass. Senator.  I consider time waping myself to Tempe so that I can jump on stage on scream for Kerry to retort that Bush has no business talking about fiscal responsibility, and I about eat the television when Kerry does not say anything about that during his response time.

-Bush is asked about what he would say to someone who has lost a job and if I hear him correctly, his answer is that he's tell the person to go to community college.  Huh?  "Yes, Mr. President, I'm a CPA who lost my job when my company imploded in the Enron scandal.  What should I do now?  What's that?  Crawford Community College?  How about I wait until January 2005 and we can enroll together..."  How does a discussion of jobs morph into education?

-AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!  If I may quote:

"Being lectured by this President on fiscal responsibility is like being lectured by Tony Soprano on law and order."-John Kerry (though he should have said it ten minutes earlier than he did.)

Can you say "Money quote"?  Or maybe BADA BING!!!

-Wow.  Kerry quotes the Bible before Bush does.

-Between bashing his podium and giggling, the President looks like he is sitting in a high chair waiting for his piece of birthday cake on his first birthday.

-Bush doesn't know if homosexuality is a choice.  Way to wade through that one, George.  Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson aren't going to invite you on their hunting trip now.  W then lobs a huge, Earth-sized softball at Kerry by stating that he proposed an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage, and Kerry avoids it.  Instead he brings up Dick Cheney's daughter and men who are gay but married, only to finally realize who they are later in life (hello, Jim McGreevey).  There was no reason to bring Cheney into this, though I don't find it as offensive as some say it was.  But I am dumbfounded that Kerry did not take the opportunity to point out that the President wants an amendment that denies rights to some of the citizens of this country.  He blew it there big time, and my teeth grind down another 1/8 inch.

-Why is health care even brought up?  It's been 12 years since 1992 when this became the big deal and no one has done anything about it.  Why should we expect anything now?  People are getting rich from the way insurance is run in this country, so what incentive is there to change?

-Neither of these candidates has a clue about Social Security.  I feel fortuante that I have been working on my singing and will be able to work on cruise ships well into my eighties.

-Bush says that the Texas border is more secure now than when he was Governor.  Nice job as Governor!  Hey, self-evaluation is F-U-N!

-The minimum wage is still under $7???  Second best quote from Kerry of the night: "I'm tired of hearing about family values without valuing families."

-OK, I am in another universe because Kerry sounds stronger towards the NRA than Bush does.  But both candidates skirt around the assault gun ban because both could have worked harder to get the ban extended.  Both were scared of the big, bad NRA.  So what, dead people don't vote anyway.

-Kerry thanks Bush for the job he did in the afternath of 9/11, then turns it into a smackdown over the way he has wasted the goodwill.  Bush smirks and just takes it.  Karl Rove ruins yet another pair of Fruit of the Looms.

-This debate has the dumbest closing question in the history of mankind, going all the way back to the Roman Empire.  "Do you love your wife?"  "Why no, I just want her money..."

-The debate ends with another lovefest on stage.  Correct me if I am wrong, but the environment was never mentioned in any debate, right?  Kerry didn't say anything about stem cell research either.  On purpose?  One might think Christopher Reeve would have wanted him to.

Obviously, none of these debates were going to change my mind, but it was worth watching all three to further notice just how unqualified W is to be President.  Not that Kerry will be Lincoln if elected, but at least he presents himself as knowledgable.  I could see Bush's puppet strings.  He is without question the least intelligent yet most arrogant man to hold the office.  That's a scary combination. 

By the way, factcheck.org is extremely helpful when it comes to verifying the misinformation fom both sides during the debates.

What were his parents thinking?

Just noticed that MSNBC has a meteorologist named Sean McGlothin, but that he pronounces his first name "seen" instead of "shawn."  I am dying to know why.

This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where a talk show host says "today on the program, Mr. Raymond Luxury Yacht."  His guest replies "That's not my name."

After the host tries again, the guest says "No, it's spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat Wrobbler Mangrel."

To which the host says "You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you."

Something to talk about

I just finished watching a tape of the second presidential debate held in St. Louis last Friday evening.

One word: (said with just a tad of sarcasm) WHOOPEE!

I found the format boring, the moderator INCREDIBLY boring, and the people asking the questions in the audience robot-like.  I've attended Vespers that were more exciting than this debate was.

John Kerry was uneventful, lacking the vigor that he showed in the first debate, and had two moments that puzzled me.  First, did he slam the Red Sox?  He made a quip about the President living in a dream world and not being realistic, and then said that was unlike a Red Sox fan.  I know that Massachusetts couldn't be any bluer, but do you really want to mess with 86 years of complete frustration?  If the Red Sox lose to the Yankees in a typical Red Sox way, enough people may be still be too stunned to vote on November 2.

Second, what was with the reference to the President owning a timber company?  I know it isn't too difficult to confuse GW, but this made no sense to me at all.  And it lead to one of the more uncomfortable moments of my life, hearing the President ask Charles Gibson (and what the hell was he doing moderating a presidential debate?  Was Pat O'Brien booked? ) if he "wanted any wood."  It's never a good thing to see a president giggle.  George W. Bush giggles like he's been trying to inflate a kiddy pool for the last two hours.

Ah, the President.  He's  America's pork chop.  That just came to me, and I don't know why.  I listen to W speak and that is what comes to my mind, a pork chop. 

He was better this time than he was in the first debate, when he had that nausea-heartburn-indigestion-upset stomach-diarrhea face going for ninety minutes.  And aside from his wood comment he was doing all right and even had me going for just a little while that perhaps, just perhaps, he was going to pull this off and come across as competent.  But towards the end of the debate, he wandered back into W World, where all he does is pander to his core conservative base and presents himself as the most arrogant man on the planet.

For example, he still called John Kerry "my opponent" every opportunity he could, which still floors me.  Again, call him Senator.  What is the problem with this?  Call him "Liberal Senator" if you must, but call him something.  He makes it sound like he's debating a robot.  I just don't get this.  And yes, I realize that this is incredibly insignificant.  It just bugs the hell out of me!

GW hit the trifecta for me at the end.  First was his inane reference to the Dred Scott case when he was asked what kind of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court.  In typical W speak, he didn't answer the question, instead telling us who he would not appoint.  He said an example of a judge that he would not name to the court would be one that believed in the Dred Scott case, which essentially gave people the continued right to own slaves before the Civil War on the basis that slaves were considered property.  I had heard about this before I watched the tape of the debate, and I have been thinking about it for a while.  Obviously, he was trying to say that he doesn't want judges on the court that rule based on personal opinion, and I am wondering if this was a thinly veiled reference to abortion rights.  But then I remember that this is W, and that there is no way he is smart enough to create an analogy that links slavery to abortion.

What is more troubling about this reference is that he is wrong about it.  At the time of this court decision, the right to personal property was part of the Constitution, and slaves fell into that category.  It was later that the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were added to the Constitution that abolished slavery and guaranteed the rights of African-Americans, i.e. that they could not be considered "personal property" anymore.

The second hit on the trifecta was his comments about abortion, and I realize that I am letting personal feeling enter into this judgment.  I just find it incredibly arrogant that anyone, let alone the President, will refuse to consider the possibility that an abortion could be performed to save the life of a mother.  I am not a practicing abortionist, obviously, and I should do some research on the subject, but really, what percentage of abortions performed are partial birth?  I find it hard to believe that it makes up a significant portion.  Forgive me for being crass, but is it likely that a woman says "hmm, I'm in the second trimester now and I really don't want this kid, guess it's time for a partial birth abortion.  Thank God I live in America."

It's after 2 AM otherwise I would head over to Google and find somewhere to give me some numbers on this.  My apologies if I am totally wrong on this.  I will check it out in the future.  I can feel ombudsmen cringing all over the blogosphere.

Last point of the trifecta, and by far the best, was the last question of the night, where a woman asked W to name three mistakes he has made in his administration.  He broke down, fell to his knees, and screamed "the whole four years has been a national nightmare!"

Yep, really, honest he did.

And I am rooting for the Cardinals to win the World Series.  Is that getting tired as a reference to satire yet?

W did not answer the question.  Instead he spun it into a statement about his resolve, about how he will do things that are not popular but are the right things to do, and dammit, he doesn't really care what anyone thinks about it.  I know it is not realistic to expect him to confess to any shortcomings, but he could have been just a little gracious about it.  Instead he babbled.  God, he makes me ill.  He is truly the most arrogant man to ever hold this office, and I can't believe this country is even considering renewing his lease for four more years.

So we move to Tempe, and I will be watching that one live.  After that, the gloves come off.  I know Karl Rove has been locked in a cage somewhere being fed a steady diet of raw meat.  The bolts get unlocked first thing Thursday.  It's going to be real ugly in this country for the next twenty days.

And so to bed...

 

Steel

There's a fine line between appreciation and sympathy when something happens to a person who is known in the public eye.  Everybody is paying tribute to Christopher Reeve today upon learning that he died yesterday.

Reeve became a symbol of hope for people with spinal cord injuries after he became a quadraplegic in 1995.  His life before that was not that important to me.  I saw the first two Superman movies but that was all I knew of him.

My awareness of just what type of man he was changed after his accident, because he became someone who I knew a little more about than most people.

In August of 1987, I left home for my freshman year of college at the University of Iowa.  I had delayed going to school for two years after high school graduation.  I was 20, and eager to get started with my adult life.  I anticipated a year of typical dorm life-staying up late, sports, etc.  I was randomly assigned housing just like thousands of other students at the university.

It wasn't until I arrived at Iowa and moved in to my dorm that I discovered that I was living on a floor that was reserved for the physically disabled.  Of the 24 people living there, I was one of three not to have a physical disability.  I was randomly selected to fill a space in a room.  It was an eye-opening experience.  I had never really dealt with anyone disabled.  The only time I recalled seeing anyone in a wheelchair was in a hospital or a nursing home.

I felt a little like Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and I say that not to compare life in a mental institution to life among the physically disabled, but as a way of comparing what it was like to be different from a majority of the people around me, to be the minority because I was healthy.

I have to admit that it took a little bit of time for me to adjust, and I moved out of the first room I lived in, partly because I could not get used to the routine that my quadraplegic roommate had to endure on a daily basis (there was constant activity in a very small room from attendants) but mostly because I had become good friends with another disabled person on the floor who had other roommate issues.  So we switched and I moved in with a paraplegic.

The dominant disability on the floor was paralysis, all resulting from accidents.  Some had been involved in car accidents, others victims of cruel circumstance like diving into a pool only to discover that it was too shallow and beaking their neck on the bottom.  

I always thought of paralysis as one of two things: the inability to use one's legs, or the inability to move anything from below the neck.  Instead I found out that each person who suffers from paralysis truly is affected in a unique way.  A few students were completely independent, able to care for themselves, get to and from class, and do anything except walk, while others were somewhat independent, but needed assistance in more basic things like getting dressed because while they could move their arms, they did not have full control of their hands.  And some residents of my floor were full quadraplegics, unable to move anything below their head; one student was unable to breathe on his own and had to be connected to a respirator.

I was incredibly sympathetic to what these men had to go through everyday, and looking back it did affect me because it was impossible to spend time there and not feel sadness, and more than a little guilt for being "normal."  But as time passed and I got to know each person, I saw that the ability to move on from tragic circumstance made resolve the strongest thing about them.  Most of the residents on my floor were considerably older than the average university student.  It had taken time to get back to the normal routine of life. 

It always amazed me how some of them got back and forth to class day in and day out.  I found myself wondering if I would be capable of doing that if my life had been completely changed as theirs had.  I still don't know; things that took me so little time to do, like bathing or eating, took some more than an hour to accomplish.

I lived elsewhere on campus after that first year, and I lost track of most of the people who lived on that floor.  Some dropped out, some moved off campus.  The most seriously injured of the goup died a year or so later.  I don't know where anyone is today, except for my roommate; who is alive or dead, but unfortunately I do know that no one has been cured.

My freshman year roommate has been a close friend of mine for the last seventeen years.  We went through a lot together during my four years at Iowa, had a lot of good times and have kept in close touch since graduation in 1991.  I'veknown him longer than most of my other friends in my life.  He was injured in a car accident when he was 18, almost two years before I met him, and he has been confined to a wheelchair since.  He is independent and has built a good life for himself in Texas.  I love him like a brother.  He's taught me a lot about the right way to live one's life.

But I have never been able to stand eye to eye with him.  He's never complained to me once about his lot in life, and I know he would think it silly for me to say that.  I have always hoped for a day when there is a knock on my door and he is there, standing in front of me, able to walk into my house.

When Christopher Reeve was injured, I thought that if there was anything positive to take from it, it would be that there would be more focus on these devastating types of injuries.  He was the first "celebrity" to suffer such an injury. 

I don't think you can place a better measure on a man who takes his own adversity and uses it to help others who are less fortunate that share his fate.  For all the times that I saw and read Reeve speak out for more help, more research to cure spinal cord injuries, never once did he complain about what happened to him.  He gave so much of himself to others during a time when it would have been perfectly acceptable for him to shun publicity.

So he leaves this world without knowing if there will be a cure in our lifetime.  Regardless of what happens, he goes to his reward with the knowledge that he made a difference,and covered more miles than any of us could do on foot.

 

 

 

Saturday seis

1. What is your favorite cartoon show? Hmm, this is a tough one.  "The Family Guy" is hysterical.  I have to admit though that spending time with my four year old niece recently has me watching "Stanley" on the Disney Channel.  Don't make me choose...

2. I found this on Wil's journal:  Take the quiz...What natural disaster are you?  Tsunami.  There's an inside joke about this that makes me laugh, but I can't explain it here.  Apparently, I am water at its worst.

3. What was the design of the last postage stamp you used? American Flag

4. What was the last pill you took? A pain reliever about an hour ago for a headache.

5. It's your ultimate breakfast:  what's on the plate? Two slices of French toast, bacon, a Denver omlette, and a cinnamon raisin bagel.

6. READER'S CHOICE QUESTION #26 from SpringsNymph and Neil:
a) When you were little, what did you want to be when you grew up? Major league baseball player
b) Are you anywhere close to that dream now? No, I stopped playing at 15.  Just wasn't good enough
c) Now that you're in the "real world," is your current job now really what you want to do for a living? I'm not employed at the moment, finishing up a "sabbatical."
d) If not, what would you ultimately like to do? I hope to be a writer.  Wait, I am a writer, I hope to find a way to get paid for it.

WWJP (What would Jesus plant?)

I think I have written about this before.

I am absurdly honked off at one of the three Catholic churches in my hometown.  This particular parish pulls the same stunt every October during even numbered years.  They plant hundreds of small crosses on their spacious front lawn along with a few billboards quoting the Pope and Mother Theresa speaking out against abortion.  The church is situated along one of the busiest streets in town; it's impossible to drive past this display and not notice it.  I saw it on Monday of this week.

In my eyes, the timing of this display makes it nothing more than a blatant reminder that the Catholic church expects you to vote Republican.  In the past there was one other billboard in this display, one that said "Vote as if your life depended on it."  I haven't seen that billboard since 2000. 

I can only assume that enough people pointed out to this parish that perhaps they should not be making that big of a political statement, so they found a way around it by getting rid of the only wording that politicizes the issue.  At least in their eyes.  But don't forget that several people in higher up positions in the Catholic faith have expressed publicly their views that pro-choice candidates should not receive communion.  The church politicizes itself as much as any organization I can think of.

My personal feeling towards abortion is that is much more than a simple "yes or no" issue.  It should not be a political crutch for either side, and it should be a private matter.  If you ask me if I am pro-choice or pro-life, I will answer that I am pro-it's none-of-my-business.

I understand why the church gets involved with the issue, but I resent that they stick their nose into the political realm by performing stunts like this.  Don't tell me that it is just a coincidence that this display goes up a month before the election and will stay up through November 2, and that you won't see it in 2005, when there are no major elections.

I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, and I am concerned about the way that some Christian groups have become a solid base of the GOP.  I think people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who have large followings of people who believe every word they say is gold, are corrupting the political process.

I'll be happy to point out a Christian fundamentalist who I believe unfairly steers his flock towards the Democrats, as soon as I can find one.

In the meantime, I am wondering what I can do to counter this parish and their disregard for the fact that they pay no taxes and thus don't really belong in the political discourse.  I could plant tons of dollar bills on their lawn and make a sign that says "Politicize like you pay taxes."  Or maybe I'll print pictures of GW and put papal hats on top of his head instead, with a sign that says "Please vote for our new Pope." 

For now, I'll just be sending the pastor of that parish a letter asking him to explain why he feels that his church is entitled to do something like this.

But I'm open to suggestions on how to counter this.

And please, while I respect other people's opinions, I'm not interested into turning this into point-counterpoint.  It's none of my business, remember?

I'm more concerned about pointing out hypocrisy.  Every time I hear or see someone spouting off on a political issue in the name of God I can't help but think of what I learned when I was a kid, that Jesus was the most forgiving, pious person ever to be on this planet.  I was taught that he loved everyone and embraced everyone.  I don't recall ever being taught anything about him that excluded people or condemned them.  There was always forgiveness and acceptance with Jesus.

That's why I don't believe in the death penalty, but that is a rant for another time.

As much as I try, I can't picture Jesus planting crosses on any lawn.