Back to the election dialogue. Other issues in this election that illuminate Compassion a great deal, and frankly get the attention this election, are immigration, health care, minimum wage, trade, and the war in Iraq (I would add global poverty and sickness). I'm writing this while listening to Obama and Hillary debate their health care plans in Austin. I usually think of the refrain "Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether die" applying to other parts of the world, but the reality is much closer to home. Where you live in these United States, where you live in my state, even where you live in my city does impact whether you live or die. It's a human travesty I cannot excuse because someone should work harder or smarter or spend less or whatever economic argument I try. Who am I to judge their opportunity or their circumstances? I don't know. Even if a person is in desperate need as a result of choices, how does that excuse my ignoring or inaction? If karma is the rule, I'm screwed.
Exasperating to me to hear arguments over details of "my plan does this and your plan does that." The truth is no President's plan will get through as it is. More important to me is the effort, the direction, the goal. Where do you want us to go, and if I agree with that direction are you capable of getting it done in today's bitter political environment? Universal health care has more traction than ever, the leadership will be critical. It has the potential to save many lives and improve the quality of millions more.
The cost matters, certainly. I had an interesting conversation with a Republican friend who was lamenting the inevitable huge cost of universal health coverage (someone who has coverage, of course), and I asked if he knew cost estimates? And did he know how much Bush had increased spending? From his 2001 budget to this 2008 budget, Bush's increased spending, increase only, was 1.1 trillion dollars (proposed 2 trillion in spending in 2001, proposed 3.1 trillion in 2008). Hillary's plan, accepted as the most expensive, would be 100 billion or so a year. Only 1 trillion to go to match Bush's spending increase! My only point with this is to say we are spending the money and we are increasing our spending - it's a choice we make to spend it on things other than caring for the medical needs of people who need help.
It’s a complicated issue, but it is an outrage that my brother dies in sight of a building full of technology and people that could have saved him, it’s unacceptable that my little sister cripples without the prevention and care that was within literal, but not economic, reach.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
His Hair, His Choice?
I get my hair cut by a barber. I've had my hair cut by a barber who was so old he used my ear to keep himself from falling, a barber who maintained a complete shop in his basement, a barber that offered me a free beer while I was in the chair (and then carefully avoided getting any clipped hair into the cup, a true artist), a barber in Coldwater, Mississippi that kept Klan literature available for reading, and even a woman barber (though she was tougher than many men). But always a barber.
For Valentines Day this year, Casey decided I should try something more fashionable. So she made an appointment for me with a stylist. I arrived and told the girl at the counter I was there for my appointment. She checked me in and then asked to take my coat. It's already a different experience. She said Deborah would be with me, I looked around and it didn't seem apparent to me where to wait, so I asked. Casey had suggested I look through hairstyle magazines while waiting and take the stylist a suggested style from the magazine. The only hairstyle magazine was for women and I wasn't feeling like asking for a man’s one. I was the only man in the place. Before I can finish my Vibe magazine article, Deborah escorts me to a rather unsubstantial chair. It has a foot rest, but I don't see any way to pump her foot and raise this thing up. Maybe she's short enough she doesn't need one.
Deborah: "Let's talk about your hair."
Me: blank stare.
Deborah is kind enough to rephrase and even has her own pictures, so that settles that. Next she says. "Okay let's go to the shampoo wall." What? I follow. I figure out she will be washing my hair first. Interesting. No one other than me has washed my hair since I was probably 4. Soon I think, "She’s really serious about that shampoo, my head will certainly be clean after this." I realize shortly that she is likely massaging my head, the oils after that confirm my suspicion. Another interesting twist, as I have not had a massage since physical therapy after breaking my neck. I have to make myself relax, and I have to admit it's pretty nice. Back to the wimpy chair.
Deborah does a nice job cutting and she sure does it differently than any barber ever has. But it takes much longer, my barber could show her how to speed things up with clippers, apparently Deborah doesn't own clippers. Speaking of clippers, where is Deborah's tall glass bottle of combs floating in blue barbicide? Making a bit of conversation, Deborah asks me if my new hair style is a surprise for my wife. I told her, "She made the appointment, gave me a gift certificate, and wrote detailed instructions on the back."
After cutting, it's back to the shampoo wall. This time I can walk confidently, I know where we're going. Dry, style, a quick lesson with "clay" and that's it! Deborah asks me if I brought a coat and what it looks like so she can bring it out to me. I told her it should be easy, it's probably the only Carhartt back there.
I am happy with my experience and new style; we'll have to see about the future. I feel guilty about Rob, my barber; as if I should mail him a check every month if I stop going there. And I don't want to pay for that AND these new expensive hair cuts!
For Valentines Day this year, Casey decided I should try something more fashionable. So she made an appointment for me with a stylist. I arrived and told the girl at the counter I was there for my appointment. She checked me in and then asked to take my coat. It's already a different experience. She said Deborah would be with me, I looked around and it didn't seem apparent to me where to wait, so I asked. Casey had suggested I look through hairstyle magazines while waiting and take the stylist a suggested style from the magazine. The only hairstyle magazine was for women and I wasn't feeling like asking for a man’s one. I was the only man in the place. Before I can finish my Vibe magazine article, Deborah escorts me to a rather unsubstantial chair. It has a foot rest, but I don't see any way to pump her foot and raise this thing up. Maybe she's short enough she doesn't need one.
Deborah: "Let's talk about your hair."
Me: blank stare.
Deborah is kind enough to rephrase and even has her own pictures, so that settles that. Next she says. "Okay let's go to the shampoo wall." What? I follow. I figure out she will be washing my hair first. Interesting. No one other than me has washed my hair since I was probably 4. Soon I think, "She’s really serious about that shampoo, my head will certainly be clean after this." I realize shortly that she is likely massaging my head, the oils after that confirm my suspicion. Another interesting twist, as I have not had a massage since physical therapy after breaking my neck. I have to make myself relax, and I have to admit it's pretty nice. Back to the wimpy chair.
Deborah does a nice job cutting and she sure does it differently than any barber ever has. But it takes much longer, my barber could show her how to speed things up with clippers, apparently Deborah doesn't own clippers. Speaking of clippers, where is Deborah's tall glass bottle of combs floating in blue barbicide? Making a bit of conversation, Deborah asks me if my new hair style is a surprise for my wife. I told her, "She made the appointment, gave me a gift certificate, and wrote detailed instructions on the back."
After cutting, it's back to the shampoo wall. This time I can walk confidently, I know where we're going. Dry, style, a quick lesson with "clay" and that's it! Deborah asks me if I brought a coat and what it looks like so she can bring it out to me. I told her it should be easy, it's probably the only Carhartt back there.
I am happy with my experience and new style; we'll have to see about the future. I feel guilty about Rob, my barber; as if I should mail him a check every month if I stop going there. And I don't want to pay for that AND these new expensive hair cuts!
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Monday
It was a Super Weekend, but now I do not have enough time to review the candidates who are in tomorrow's Super Tuesday primary. It took me most of Super Saturday to recover from Super Friday Night. Then Super Sunday I lolled about all morning, went for a run, then it was game time before I knew it. Actually, that's a typical weekend for me.
Regardless, now I am without time to fully review even the remaining top 4 candidates. Instead, maybe I can parse a few important issues and compare the candidates that way.
I am not a one-issue voter. There is no particular topic that would prohibit me from voting for a person because of their position. I am more interested in the total leadership that would be provided. The best indicators I have for the kind of leadership I want for the country are indicators of the person's core beliefs about their fellow Men and Women, their Compassion. The twist, or difficulty, is demonstrating this Compassion within the rule of law, the Constitution. And, of course, with common sense.
Issues that would concern me then would be the poor, the sick, the security of people, equality of race and opportunity, and our role in the world with these same issues. An issue that directly confronts both Compassion and the Constitution is the issue of taking a life. If you thought I meant abortion, you are half right. You and I cannot know when life begins, but we both know for certain that the person on death row is alive, is a life. I, for one, feel no authority to take another person's life in that situation. I can find no compelling reason in revenge or retribution or prevention, not even in the most heinous situations. If I believe that people can change and that Yahweh is pursuing everyone, how can I be responsible for taking away Saddam Hussein's chance of redemption? Sadly, there is no viable candidate who will stand for life and oppose the death penalty. Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney all support the death penalty in at least some situations. Of them, Obama has done the most to at least reduce the death penalty while he was in the Illinois state senate. Obama worked hard to pass legislation in Illinois requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and other limited reform of the death penalty court procedures. Ron Paul opposes the death penalty. Huckabee, who is practically running on Jesus' back even supports the death penalty (not sure who he thinks Jesus would execute, but I digress).
A similar issue, of course, is abortion. As I said earlier, I believe we cannot know when life begins. However, if I value life, would I not rather err on the side of caution? Would I not protect a potential life instead of disregarding the chances that this life exists? Before I get too pious, though, I still have to answer "how far will I err on the side of protecting life?" If a fertilized egg "could" be life, will I oppose its destruction? Many contraceptives work by preventing an egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Is that abortion? What if the known life is in danger and ending the possible life will save the known life? Fortunately, I do not have to get that deep in reviewing the candidates' positions.
The legal definition of abortion is terminating a nonviable fetus (choosing the touchstone of viability rather than life). In the first 3 months of pregnancy, this can be done basically at will. During months 4 through 6, states are allowed to put restrictions on the termination but cannot prohibit it. After 6 months, the fetus is considered viable and is treated nearly like a person. Clinton is the strongest proponent of abortion rights, even criticizing the ban on partial-birth abortions that was supported by many in both parties. It seems apparent to me that she would support any abortion rights the Supreme Court would possibly grant. Obama talks pretty well about the issue, seeming to appreciate the value of life and the difficulty that "a fetus is not just an appendage, it's potential life" (his words). However, his voting record clearly casts a vote for appendage, not life.
McCain has a solid record of voting on the side of life in this area. He has allowed for exceptions related to a woman's health, rape and incest. Romney says he believes these things now, but it will be up to you to determine whether you believe him as he has not had opportunity to demonstrate his new beliefs. I do not understand the exception for rape and incest, from a logical point of view. Once you have made the call that it is a life, if there is no harm to another life at stake, I cannot see the evaluation of the circumstances of the birth. Huckabee and Ron Paul have voting records and documented positions that solidly err on the side of protecing the potential of life.
One quick add-on to the abortion issue is a candidate's view on abortion also illuminates their view of the Constitution. Almost always, a candidate that believes abortion should be protected believes the Constitution requires protection of abortion. I will spare the lengthy Constitutional discussion, but I have studied this extensively and I am in firm belief that no protection of abortion exists in the Constitution. Conversely, ending the growth of something not a life is not prohibited by the Constitution. Which brings you back to defining what is a life, but my point in this paragraph is the person's view of the Constitution. I am disappointed when lawyers like Clinton or Obama argue that the Constitution contains this right. I believe they are mistaken but I also believe they do not "need" abortion rights to exist in the Constitution to protect abortion rights.
Last bit of discussion from me on these 2 issues of life: Every one of these candidates except Ron Paul hold an inconsistent view on life. The abortion opponents believe it is okay to kill a known life. The ones that want to protect as much as possible the known guilty life, are willing to err in killing inoccent life. I find both contradictions logically inconsistent and cruel.
I could go into much more discussion on this frustrating inconsistencies, but I have clearly gone on too long already. If I was a one-issue voter, it appears Ron Paul would be my candidate. Alas, his Compassion has been severely marred by some terribly racist, homophobic and otherwise bigoted newsletters he published. I read several of these for myself, and he certainly lost any chance of my vote through them.
I guess I will not have time to discuss with you any other issues before my vote. At this writing, McCain leads my state polls with a 4 to 8 percent margin, depending on the poll. Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat. It would appear that my vote would matter more on the Democratic ballot. I will decide for certain tomorrow, stay tuned...
Regardless, now I am without time to fully review even the remaining top 4 candidates. Instead, maybe I can parse a few important issues and compare the candidates that way.
I am not a one-issue voter. There is no particular topic that would prohibit me from voting for a person because of their position. I am more interested in the total leadership that would be provided. The best indicators I have for the kind of leadership I want for the country are indicators of the person's core beliefs about their fellow Men and Women, their Compassion. The twist, or difficulty, is demonstrating this Compassion within the rule of law, the Constitution. And, of course, with common sense.
Issues that would concern me then would be the poor, the sick, the security of people, equality of race and opportunity, and our role in the world with these same issues. An issue that directly confronts both Compassion and the Constitution is the issue of taking a life. If you thought I meant abortion, you are half right. You and I cannot know when life begins, but we both know for certain that the person on death row is alive, is a life. I, for one, feel no authority to take another person's life in that situation. I can find no compelling reason in revenge or retribution or prevention, not even in the most heinous situations. If I believe that people can change and that Yahweh is pursuing everyone, how can I be responsible for taking away Saddam Hussein's chance of redemption? Sadly, there is no viable candidate who will stand for life and oppose the death penalty. Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney all support the death penalty in at least some situations. Of them, Obama has done the most to at least reduce the death penalty while he was in the Illinois state senate. Obama worked hard to pass legislation in Illinois requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and other limited reform of the death penalty court procedures. Ron Paul opposes the death penalty. Huckabee, who is practically running on Jesus' back even supports the death penalty (not sure who he thinks Jesus would execute, but I digress).
A similar issue, of course, is abortion. As I said earlier, I believe we cannot know when life begins. However, if I value life, would I not rather err on the side of caution? Would I not protect a potential life instead of disregarding the chances that this life exists? Before I get too pious, though, I still have to answer "how far will I err on the side of protecting life?" If a fertilized egg "could" be life, will I oppose its destruction? Many contraceptives work by preventing an egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Is that abortion? What if the known life is in danger and ending the possible life will save the known life? Fortunately, I do not have to get that deep in reviewing the candidates' positions.
The legal definition of abortion is terminating a nonviable fetus (choosing the touchstone of viability rather than life). In the first 3 months of pregnancy, this can be done basically at will. During months 4 through 6, states are allowed to put restrictions on the termination but cannot prohibit it. After 6 months, the fetus is considered viable and is treated nearly like a person. Clinton is the strongest proponent of abortion rights, even criticizing the ban on partial-birth abortions that was supported by many in both parties. It seems apparent to me that she would support any abortion rights the Supreme Court would possibly grant. Obama talks pretty well about the issue, seeming to appreciate the value of life and the difficulty that "a fetus is not just an appendage, it's potential life" (his words). However, his voting record clearly casts a vote for appendage, not life.
McCain has a solid record of voting on the side of life in this area. He has allowed for exceptions related to a woman's health, rape and incest. Romney says he believes these things now, but it will be up to you to determine whether you believe him as he has not had opportunity to demonstrate his new beliefs. I do not understand the exception for rape and incest, from a logical point of view. Once you have made the call that it is a life, if there is no harm to another life at stake, I cannot see the evaluation of the circumstances of the birth. Huckabee and Ron Paul have voting records and documented positions that solidly err on the side of protecing the potential of life.
One quick add-on to the abortion issue is a candidate's view on abortion also illuminates their view of the Constitution. Almost always, a candidate that believes abortion should be protected believes the Constitution requires protection of abortion. I will spare the lengthy Constitutional discussion, but I have studied this extensively and I am in firm belief that no protection of abortion exists in the Constitution. Conversely, ending the growth of something not a life is not prohibited by the Constitution. Which brings you back to defining what is a life, but my point in this paragraph is the person's view of the Constitution. I am disappointed when lawyers like Clinton or Obama argue that the Constitution contains this right. I believe they are mistaken but I also believe they do not "need" abortion rights to exist in the Constitution to protect abortion rights.
Last bit of discussion from me on these 2 issues of life: Every one of these candidates except Ron Paul hold an inconsistent view on life. The abortion opponents believe it is okay to kill a known life. The ones that want to protect as much as possible the known guilty life, are willing to err in killing inoccent life. I find both contradictions logically inconsistent and cruel.
I could go into much more discussion on this frustrating inconsistencies, but I have clearly gone on too long already. If I was a one-issue voter, it appears Ron Paul would be my candidate. Alas, his Compassion has been severely marred by some terribly racist, homophobic and otherwise bigoted newsletters he published. I read several of these for myself, and he certainly lost any chance of my vote through them.
I guess I will not have time to discuss with you any other issues before my vote. At this writing, McCain leads my state polls with a 4 to 8 percent margin, depending on the poll. Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat. It would appear that my vote would matter more on the Democratic ballot. I will decide for certain tomorrow, stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
