I was late coming to The West Wing, but it's one of my favorite things. So much so that I invested in the whole series on DVD. I decided that at some point I would start at the beginning and, one episode a week, I'd do it all over again.
This January was when I began to do it all over again.
Sadly, it's so many of the same issues. Gun control, campaign finance reform. Gays in the military, and in America in general, was the one bright exception.
Today I watched the episode called, "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet." It is fraught with frustration, as poll numbers drop and the press corps, the military chiefs and Congress let Jeb Bartlet know in no uncertain terms that he is just not going to make a difference.
Turns out that he hasn't been trying that hard. It turns out that winning a second term has become more important than any of the issues that made it worth running for President in the first place.
And by the end of the episode there is a rousing turning point, wherein the President and the staff of the West Wing determine that the most important thing is fighting for those ideals.
I think we're all pretty sick of politics. Of politicians saying what they think we want to hear. President Obama's poll ratings go up when he speaks his mind. The trick is not to pay attention to the poll ratings, but to keep paying attention to what is on his mind, and to keep speaking to it.
Gun control, campaign finance reform, violence against women, protecting the environment, educating our children, raising taxes to fund what our citizens need. We have seen our president step up every so often, and he gets beaten down by scandalmongers, and sometimes by his own questionable secret agendas.
Maybe it's time for that moment, where he asks himself, why am I here after all? Maybe he needs to go back and rerun those old speeches, just as I have been rerunning those episodes of West Wing. I think he too would find inspiration in those ideals spoken back when he was first running to change the country.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Antonin and Me
Some of us are up in arms at the Supreme Court ruling that it is a-okay to take DNA swabs of suspects and use them to search databases of open crimes.
I do hate to be on the same side of a fight as Justice Scalia, and I can't say I agree with his weird "we should continue to live in the 18th century as the Founding Fathers would have wanted it" philosophy. But still. One does have to ask, "Where does it end?"
In the debate following the decision, some have said it would not be amiss to swab at birth, and have the data right there in a national database.
Now, don't go all panicky just yet. Think of all the data our government already has on us.
Some were outraged when the government began to require we all have social security identification cards. Back then it was illegal to use those identification numbers for anything other than social security. So imagine the panic when colleges began to use the number as student ID. Now imagine not using the number as an ID for nearly everything.
To be honest, even though I was of the generation when by the time you had finished applying for college, you'd be very likely to have your SSN memorized, it truly chills me that this number has become the ID that follows us throughout every stage of our lives. While we are encouraged to develop computer passwords that will be so complicated no one can break in, including ourselves, that one nine-digit number links us to every important thing we do.
And then there is the fingerprint. My fingerprint went into that creepy database when I took the licensing exam for psychology, because what greater security need is there than to keep track of those licensed professionals?
Being a lifelong underachiever, and having been minimally employed since I walked away from a psychology practice that was being governed by the bottom line of managed care rather than the interests of the patient, I have no idea what other high status positions require fingerprinting. My guess is, more than you or I would imagine.
And then there are drivers' licenses, which, as with the social security card, were met with distrust by those individuals who felt that living in a free country meant that our names and photos should not be on file. Of course, it is becoming commonplace to require photo ID to vote, and to not carry such an ID, which is maintained by the state and might as well be considered a national database given the technology, has nearly become unfeasible. The fact that its original purpose was to be as proof of the qualification to drive a car is ancient history.
So what is the big deal about just collecting that DNA? Don't fight it. It's just a matter of time.
And RFID, those little electromagnetic chips that are in the tags on the clothes you buy to prevent shoplifting, are also being used to track inventory. And -- why not? -- your purchase history. In fact, those of us who are annoyed at having to carry around so many cards for ID, to charge purchases, to borrow library books, might just step up and volunteer to have one of those chips put right under our skin. If you don't mind the fact that you can be followed by your cell phone signal, why would you care about a chip under your skin?
So we have here the inevitable creepy centralized tracking of us. And most of us don't mind. But there is one exception, and I just have to wonder why.
Those same folks who brought you voter ID, who believe the ability to track us all will keep us safe from terrorists, will fight to their death (actually, to your death) for the right to bear arms without ID, license or registry.
Go figure.
I do hate to be on the same side of a fight as Justice Scalia, and I can't say I agree with his weird "we should continue to live in the 18th century as the Founding Fathers would have wanted it" philosophy. But still. One does have to ask, "Where does it end?"
In the debate following the decision, some have said it would not be amiss to swab at birth, and have the data right there in a national database.
Now, don't go all panicky just yet. Think of all the data our government already has on us.
Some were outraged when the government began to require we all have social security identification cards. Back then it was illegal to use those identification numbers for anything other than social security. So imagine the panic when colleges began to use the number as student ID. Now imagine not using the number as an ID for nearly everything.
To be honest, even though I was of the generation when by the time you had finished applying for college, you'd be very likely to have your SSN memorized, it truly chills me that this number has become the ID that follows us throughout every stage of our lives. While we are encouraged to develop computer passwords that will be so complicated no one can break in, including ourselves, that one nine-digit number links us to every important thing we do.
And then there is the fingerprint. My fingerprint went into that creepy database when I took the licensing exam for psychology, because what greater security need is there than to keep track of those licensed professionals?
Being a lifelong underachiever, and having been minimally employed since I walked away from a psychology practice that was being governed by the bottom line of managed care rather than the interests of the patient, I have no idea what other high status positions require fingerprinting. My guess is, more than you or I would imagine.
And then there are drivers' licenses, which, as with the social security card, were met with distrust by those individuals who felt that living in a free country meant that our names and photos should not be on file. Of course, it is becoming commonplace to require photo ID to vote, and to not carry such an ID, which is maintained by the state and might as well be considered a national database given the technology, has nearly become unfeasible. The fact that its original purpose was to be as proof of the qualification to drive a car is ancient history.
So what is the big deal about just collecting that DNA? Don't fight it. It's just a matter of time.
And RFID, those little electromagnetic chips that are in the tags on the clothes you buy to prevent shoplifting, are also being used to track inventory. And -- why not? -- your purchase history. In fact, those of us who are annoyed at having to carry around so many cards for ID, to charge purchases, to borrow library books, might just step up and volunteer to have one of those chips put right under our skin. If you don't mind the fact that you can be followed by your cell phone signal, why would you care about a chip under your skin?
So we have here the inevitable creepy centralized tracking of us. And most of us don't mind. But there is one exception, and I just have to wonder why.
Those same folks who brought you voter ID, who believe the ability to track us all will keep us safe from terrorists, will fight to their death (actually, to your death) for the right to bear arms without ID, license or registry.
Go figure.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
A Little Perspective on an Ivy League Education
No, this isn't an excuse to brag on my son getting his bachelor's degree (Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude) in physics from Harvard last week. But I was the first to get a bachelor's degree from my immediate family, just barely scraping by at the University of Rhode Island, which is a good school. But it's not Harvard. So I said it.
Last week was an awful lot of pomp and hot air. I was taken in till my sister and her husband arrived, and that was good for bringing me back down to reality and having a few good laughs at all the putting on of airs, hot or otherwise.
A lot of that hot air involved telling the almost-grads that they are now about to become members of an exclusive and important club. All said with a great deal of noblesse oblige.
Doors would indeed be open to them because of their "H-brand." And it would be up to them to use that power to do good -- to be leaders, and to make the world a better place.
Hmmph.
It wasn't till I got home, in fact, days after I got home, that I wondered at just how many students in that audience were vowing that they would indeed take it upon themselves to use their power for good rather than evil, as opposed to checking their iPhones.
After all, Harvard graduated Barack Obama, but also Mitt Romney. I can assure you that both believe that they are doing good and we all know which one really is.
Then there are those who are world leaders, and done much good along the way, who decided Harvard just wasn't doing it for them, people like Bill Gates. Of course, there is debate about how he accumulated the resources to do good with his Foundation, but still....
It is more likely that many of those who are on that august roster who have made the greatest contribution to our country and the world are not known by us. There appears to be a tendency for those notables who use their Harvard credential -- or any noted credential -- to affect change to take care of Number One first -- and best. And whether that grad has come from wealth or poverty, most are willing to forget, if indeed they were ever aware of, those who are being left behind.
Compare the scientist who searches for a cure who is funded by government grants to the scientist who works for the pharmaceutical company who has vowed not to share progress rather than risk cutting into potential profits.
Then there is the army of Harvard MBA's -- bless their cold and shiny hearts. I was pleased when a joke was made by one student speaker about another -- a notable business school speaker -- destroying the world. Could it be that the students have clearer vision at the point of departure than those faculty that send them off?
Maybe Commencement Week at Harvard isn't the place to be unabashedly honest about the likely futures of many of the grads. And, to be fair, cheating scandal and student tragedy was brought up alongside the acclaim of the four years.
But parents, time to wipe away the tears of pride. Harvard, by virtue of that prestigious "H", has given your graduates the power, and given many the confidence, and offered them all an ethical education with a moral message. But whether or not they heard that message will remain to be seen.
Last week was an awful lot of pomp and hot air. I was taken in till my sister and her husband arrived, and that was good for bringing me back down to reality and having a few good laughs at all the putting on of airs, hot or otherwise.
A lot of that hot air involved telling the almost-grads that they are now about to become members of an exclusive and important club. All said with a great deal of noblesse oblige.
Doors would indeed be open to them because of their "H-brand." And it would be up to them to use that power to do good -- to be leaders, and to make the world a better place.
Hmmph.
It wasn't till I got home, in fact, days after I got home, that I wondered at just how many students in that audience were vowing that they would indeed take it upon themselves to use their power for good rather than evil, as opposed to checking their iPhones.
After all, Harvard graduated Barack Obama, but also Mitt Romney. I can assure you that both believe that they are doing good and we all know which one really is.
Then there are those who are world leaders, and done much good along the way, who decided Harvard just wasn't doing it for them, people like Bill Gates. Of course, there is debate about how he accumulated the resources to do good with his Foundation, but still....
It is more likely that many of those who are on that august roster who have made the greatest contribution to our country and the world are not known by us. There appears to be a tendency for those notables who use their Harvard credential -- or any noted credential -- to affect change to take care of Number One first -- and best. And whether that grad has come from wealth or poverty, most are willing to forget, if indeed they were ever aware of, those who are being left behind.
Compare the scientist who searches for a cure who is funded by government grants to the scientist who works for the pharmaceutical company who has vowed not to share progress rather than risk cutting into potential profits.
Then there is the army of Harvard MBA's -- bless their cold and shiny hearts. I was pleased when a joke was made by one student speaker about another -- a notable business school speaker -- destroying the world. Could it be that the students have clearer vision at the point of departure than those faculty that send them off?
Maybe Commencement Week at Harvard isn't the place to be unabashedly honest about the likely futures of many of the grads. And, to be fair, cheating scandal and student tragedy was brought up alongside the acclaim of the four years.
But parents, time to wipe away the tears of pride. Harvard, by virtue of that prestigious "H", has given your graduates the power, and given many the confidence, and offered them all an ethical education with a moral message. But whether or not they heard that message will remain to be seen.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Why I Need a Break
I just now turned my TV from DVD mode to C-SPAN (not on purpose). Some House Republican was pontificating on the need for Federal Duck Stamps.
I suppose better that than women's issues.
I suppose better that than women's issues.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Just Say Yes
Tuesday is election day. No, this is not deja vu, Tuesday is the day for the Special Election for District 1 in the US House of Representatives.
We have for some time now been caught up in Congress's downward spiral of negativity, where work has not been getting done for the American people, and for us here in South Carolina.
Mark Sanford will continue that voice of "no" in a do-nothing Congress. He neither cares whether you are long-term unemployed, or unable to afford college, or without health care. He will vote "no" to any program that would bring us out of the downward spiral we have been in for far too long. And he has said that proudly, as part of his campaign promise to you.
Elizabeth Colbert Busch will fight to make our Congress work. She will work to bring not just business, but forward moving businesses, to the Lowcountry. She will work to bring new technology and jobs that will move us into the 21st century. And she will work with any member of Congress that has the goal of breaking the negative spiral and moving our country forward.
We have not seen this kind of energy, or integrity, here in a very long time.
So do not miss the opportunity to vote for Elizabeth on Tuesday, May 7.
You may not be sure if you are in District 1, after some creative district lines were drawn a couple of years ago. If you're not sure, go to SC Votes to find out.
If you don't know where your polling place is, SC Votes will have that information for you as well.
Time to stop letting politicians like Mark Sanford use and abuse the privilege.
Time to say yes to a candidate that will be a true leader in Congress, that we can all be proud of.
We have for some time now been caught up in Congress's downward spiral of negativity, where work has not been getting done for the American people, and for us here in South Carolina.
Mark Sanford will continue that voice of "no" in a do-nothing Congress. He neither cares whether you are long-term unemployed, or unable to afford college, or without health care. He will vote "no" to any program that would bring us out of the downward spiral we have been in for far too long. And he has said that proudly, as part of his campaign promise to you.
Elizabeth Colbert Busch will fight to make our Congress work. She will work to bring not just business, but forward moving businesses, to the Lowcountry. She will work to bring new technology and jobs that will move us into the 21st century. And she will work with any member of Congress that has the goal of breaking the negative spiral and moving our country forward.
We have not seen this kind of energy, or integrity, here in a very long time.
So do not miss the opportunity to vote for Elizabeth on Tuesday, May 7.
You may not be sure if you are in District 1, after some creative district lines were drawn a couple of years ago. If you're not sure, go to SC Votes to find out.
If you don't know where your polling place is, SC Votes will have that information for you as well.
Time to stop letting politicians like Mark Sanford use and abuse the privilege.
Time to say yes to a candidate that will be a true leader in Congress, that we can all be proud of.
Elizabeth Colbert Busch
for
US House of Representatives
Tuesday, May 7
Friday, May 3, 2013
When School Resource Officers Are Idle
A 16-year-old girl was expelled and charged with possession and discharge of a weapon for bringing the kind of science project in to school that used to be done routinely. This happened in Florida, where you may be able to shoot to kill anyone on the street you find suspicious, but a water bottle experiment that shows expansion to bursting is considered enough of a deadly weapon that this young woman's life may be in tatters.
A good student, a good kid, never been in trouble -- that's what teachers, principal and parents say about her. But it appears that in schools in Florida, it is the resource officer that decides the fate of a student who's gotten into trouble.
When we caved to wacko Wayne LaPierre's pressured sales pitch on having an officer in every school, there are some aspects of the situation in the real world that our lawmakers just didn't think through.
What, exactly, are the duties of this armed officer going to be? Given that there are not problems with weapons in most of the schools in the country, we are appointing a full-time police officer to patrol a small unusually well protected area full-time. Have I mentioned that they would be armed? In middle and high schools, the potential for abuse of that power is extraordinary. Kids acting suspicious? Walk through a middle school and see how many kids look suspicious to you. Especially if it's your job to route out suspicious looking kids.
And what about the wise guys? Tell me you don't believe that kids will make cracks about guns and weapons, maybe just to see what will happen, maybe even for the purpose of getting suspended for a few days.
Then there are the kids that are fearful to begin with. This is not like having an officer on the street, which I think can be imposing enough depending on the locale. A cop patrolling the hall in a usually chaotic environment is not going to lend to a feeling of security.
If I were a good cop given this job, I might feel frustrated or guilty that, for the most part, I am wasting my time. I might start to look a little more closely at the behavior of those who are louder, or travel in larger groups, or perhaps just seem to be hiding something. I'll search some of those kids, and maybe even find drugs at some point. Or maybe not. I'll be keeping my eyes open for kids that are "breaking the rules," whether that means running through the corridor, being late to class, or letting loose with an obscenity.
And maybe, if a science project goes awry, I will assume it must be a terrorist attack, because it is my job to protect this school from an attack. And seen in that light, that is what it will become.
By putting police officers in schools, we have taken the control out of the hands of those whose life work has been educating, and guiding, our children, and put that control into the hands of law enforcement, whose job it is to enforce laws.
Isn't it odd that those same legislators who are most paranoid about the government taking away our freedom are so willing to take it away from our children?
A good student, a good kid, never been in trouble -- that's what teachers, principal and parents say about her. But it appears that in schools in Florida, it is the resource officer that decides the fate of a student who's gotten into trouble.
When we caved to wacko Wayne LaPierre's pressured sales pitch on having an officer in every school, there are some aspects of the situation in the real world that our lawmakers just didn't think through.
What, exactly, are the duties of this armed officer going to be? Given that there are not problems with weapons in most of the schools in the country, we are appointing a full-time police officer to patrol a small unusually well protected area full-time. Have I mentioned that they would be armed? In middle and high schools, the potential for abuse of that power is extraordinary. Kids acting suspicious? Walk through a middle school and see how many kids look suspicious to you. Especially if it's your job to route out suspicious looking kids.
And what about the wise guys? Tell me you don't believe that kids will make cracks about guns and weapons, maybe just to see what will happen, maybe even for the purpose of getting suspended for a few days.
Then there are the kids that are fearful to begin with. This is not like having an officer on the street, which I think can be imposing enough depending on the locale. A cop patrolling the hall in a usually chaotic environment is not going to lend to a feeling of security.
If I were a good cop given this job, I might feel frustrated or guilty that, for the most part, I am wasting my time. I might start to look a little more closely at the behavior of those who are louder, or travel in larger groups, or perhaps just seem to be hiding something. I'll search some of those kids, and maybe even find drugs at some point. Or maybe not. I'll be keeping my eyes open for kids that are "breaking the rules," whether that means running through the corridor, being late to class, or letting loose with an obscenity.
And maybe, if a science project goes awry, I will assume it must be a terrorist attack, because it is my job to protect this school from an attack. And seen in that light, that is what it will become.
By putting police officers in schools, we have taken the control out of the hands of those whose life work has been educating, and guiding, our children, and put that control into the hands of law enforcement, whose job it is to enforce laws.
Isn't it odd that those same legislators who are most paranoid about the government taking away our freedom are so willing to take it away from our children?
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Back to a Dark Future
Yesterday the South Carolina Senate overwhelmingly passed bill S 618, which prohibits employer contributions (i.e. your tax dollars) to contribute to abortion services for state employees enrolled in the State Health Insurance Plan. Here in SC, this was considered a successful compromise because an employee can choose to place some of their own part of the contribution to the Plan into a special fund to be used only for abortion services.
Wait. You're not done. You may think this is immoral and humiliating enough but our wise legislators have added two more critical caveats:
This "special fund" can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest or the endangered health of the 'mother'," by which I'm assuming these creeps mean the pregnant woman.
And finally, during annual enrollment, the employee may check the box that reads:
So, let's suppose I am younger than I am, and I am sitting in the HR office contemplating my health care options. I have learned that this employee portion of the fund is only to be used for abortions. Does that mean that I will be cut off from some other future health care needs? Well, I certainly am not planning on needing an abortion, am I? So I opt out. And then I get pregnant.
Not to worry, they won't cover you even if you are contributing to the special fund unless you are raped or in danger of losing your life. In which case in order to be covered you have to prove rape or that your life is in danger. Which apparently has only happened six times since 2006.
And the best part of this bill is that all but two members of the Senate (who both had excused absences, really) voted in favor. And now, I suppose on to the House.
Meanwhile, in another part of the country, a man named Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor, is being tried for murder. The testimony leaves the most gruesome images of live births and lives taken. Within the run down building, the clinic offices were dirty. We don't know if Gosnell was once a good man who did his job out of compassion, but that is surely not the case now.
If our legislators have their way, there will be more of these "clinics," albeit more well hidden. We have bills pending that will make abortion illegal after six weeks, and if that one doesn't make it, twelve weeks. We have bills that place birth at the moment of conception. We have bills that prohibit good qualified doctors from crossing state lines to perform abortion services in South Carolina.
These men who obsessively work to limit and eventually ban abortion are not smart men, they are not scientists, and they erroneously call themselves "Christian." What they are is narcissistic and prideful. And despise those who are in need. They will force a pregnant woman to carry to term and then withdraw any help for that infant once it's born. They do not ever flood the dockets with bills aiming to provide nutrition or pre-natal care. They are the punishers of the twenty-first century, whose goal is to bring suffering to women who have had sex resulting in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. They would ban contraception if they could, but that is for another term.
If they were as clever as they think they are, they would know that history proves that abortions will not be banned. They will continue. Men like Lee Bright can take a victory lap whenever he is able to chip away at a woman's right to reproductive freedom, but what he is celebrating is the return of the back alley, and more "clinics" like that of Dr. Gosnell.
When abortions are banned, it will be in clinics like that of Dr. Gosnell that abortions are performed.
Wait. You're not done. You may think this is immoral and humiliating enough but our wise legislators have added two more critical caveats:
This "special fund" can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest or the endangered health of the 'mother'," by which I'm assuming these creeps mean the pregnant woman.
And finally, during annual enrollment, the employee may check the box that reads:
'By checking the box, I am declaring that I do not want any portion of my premium to be used to reimburse the expenses of an abortion, including ancillary services, performed in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's medical condition is one which, in the opinion of her physician within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, so complicates the pregnancy as to necessitate an immediate abortion to avert the risk of her death.'The big coup I suppose for the pro-choice among us is that women who do want to contribute to that fund do not have to indicate by checking a box. As far as I know.
So, let's suppose I am younger than I am, and I am sitting in the HR office contemplating my health care options. I have learned that this employee portion of the fund is only to be used for abortions. Does that mean that I will be cut off from some other future health care needs? Well, I certainly am not planning on needing an abortion, am I? So I opt out. And then I get pregnant.
Not to worry, they won't cover you even if you are contributing to the special fund unless you are raped or in danger of losing your life. In which case in order to be covered you have to prove rape or that your life is in danger. Which apparently has only happened six times since 2006.
And the best part of this bill is that all but two members of the Senate (who both had excused absences, really) voted in favor. And now, I suppose on to the House.
Meanwhile, in another part of the country, a man named Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor, is being tried for murder. The testimony leaves the most gruesome images of live births and lives taken. Within the run down building, the clinic offices were dirty. We don't know if Gosnell was once a good man who did his job out of compassion, but that is surely not the case now.
If our legislators have their way, there will be more of these "clinics," albeit more well hidden. We have bills pending that will make abortion illegal after six weeks, and if that one doesn't make it, twelve weeks. We have bills that place birth at the moment of conception. We have bills that prohibit good qualified doctors from crossing state lines to perform abortion services in South Carolina.
These men who obsessively work to limit and eventually ban abortion are not smart men, they are not scientists, and they erroneously call themselves "Christian." What they are is narcissistic and prideful. And despise those who are in need. They will force a pregnant woman to carry to term and then withdraw any help for that infant once it's born. They do not ever flood the dockets with bills aiming to provide nutrition or pre-natal care. They are the punishers of the twenty-first century, whose goal is to bring suffering to women who have had sex resulting in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. They would ban contraception if they could, but that is for another term.
If they were as clever as they think they are, they would know that history proves that abortions will not be banned. They will continue. Men like Lee Bright can take a victory lap whenever he is able to chip away at a woman's right to reproductive freedom, but what he is celebrating is the return of the back alley, and more "clinics" like that of Dr. Gosnell.
When abortions are banned, it will be in clinics like that of Dr. Gosnell that abortions are performed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)