Adam Shepard debunks the myth of the death of the middle class. With only $25 in is pocket and the clothes on his back, he set out in a random American city to see if in one year he could acquire a car, a furnished apartment and $2,500 in savings. His book is next on my reading list!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Free Clinics and Jack Boots: A Delightful Romp Through the Abortion Debate
This is a response I gave to a post on a blog called A Liberal Mormon. The topic was abortion; you can read the original post here and my response as follows:
Wow. I mean, WOW. I find this offensive on so many levels. Let me just explain them one by one:
First, regarding this statement:
"While the nominally pro-life side may zealously defend the sanctity of life at one stage(the pre-natal stage), they often seem strangely indifferent to life once that life has left the womb."
I am the mother of four healthy, happy children and I can tell you that I am in no way indifferent to life once that life has left the womb. In fact, I have given up just about everything to see to it that my children are well cared for: career, money, financial security, professional respect, autonomy, freedom, health, etc. How can you make such a disgusting generalization?
And as for indifference on a wider scale, lest you forget, we do have laws regarding the neglect and abuse of children. We have laws that punish parents who don't properly care for their children. We have laws that punish those who hurt children. We even have laws that punish those who kill children. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people who are pro-life support and agree with these laws.
What we don't have is a law that punishes those who kill their own children in the womb; a stage of life that you clearly define as legitimate. I find it ludicrous that one young woman can have an abortion and face no legal consequences, while another young woman who throws her baby in the dumpster right after giving birth is arrested. Tell me, what exactly is the legal difference between those two scenarios, other than time and place?
I also find the following offensive:
"Pro-life shouldn't simply be about forcing expectant mothers to carry their babies to term, but rather about ensuring they have the medical, financial, and emotional support which will help reduce the feelings of desperation and isolation which lead many women to seek abortions."
First of all, your wording reveals a tactic that I am going to call you out on right now:
Based on that first sentence alone, one might imagine a helpless young maiden being marched by jack-booted officers to a skeezy free clinic in which the nurses cackle gleefully as the poor girl screams in agony during childbirth because the disapproving, moralistic medical staff refuses to give her anesthesia of any kind. Give me a break. What is this, a Lifetime movie of the week? Don't manipulate your readers with emotion-based, pseudo-logic. Even though it is effective (because good people are moved by compassion for others, as they should be), it's intellectually unethical, and you know it.
Second, this issue is not about social reforms needed to improve the condition of the poor and the underprivileged. This issue is about one thing, and one thing only. Should we or should we not, as a society, allow a mother (and her doctor) to end the life of her child? All of those other ramblings about lack of medical, financial and emotional support are just distractions to avoid answering the question.
Third, let me just educate you a little bit about feelings of desperation and isolation. Any woman who has spent eight hours (or more) a day at home taking care of small children could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject of desperation and isolation. How much compassion would you have for that same mother if she decided to end the lives of her children because she was poor, depressed and lonely? How much compassion did any of us have for the woman who drowned five of her children in the bathtub several years ago because she was dealing with those very issues? Certainly not enough to pat her on the back, tell her how brave she was, and send her on her way.
Desperation, loneliness, despair; these are characteristic of the human condition and do not justify the practice of human sacrifice. Because that is exactly what we are talking about here. Sacrificing the lives of millions of human beings so that their mothers won't have to struggle. Really? There's no other alternative?
And the most horrifying of all:
"I'd be more inclined to support the efforts of self-described pro-life advocates if they seemed more genuinely interested in “the sanctity of life,” and less interested in punishing those who have sinned."
So, for you, it's not that you think the pro-lifers are wrong, it's just that they're so damned annoying. In reality, if they weren't all such a bunch of crazy religious zealots (again with the broad, inaccurate generalizations) and were more supportive of the social programs that you proscribe, you would gladly stand up and shout out against legalized abortion. But because they aren't, you will make your point by sitting quietly by and allowing, even supporting, an action that is akin to the Holocaust. Horrible.
In the end, the most destructive thing about this post is not the self-serving arguments or the ridiculous stereotyping, but rather the blatant and overreaching assumption about the correlation between a pro-life stance and stances on other completely irrelevant social issues. For such an enlightened, thoughtful blogger, you are very quick to place everyone who is “pro-life” into identical schools of thought regarding such diverse topics as housing, health care, education, the death penalty, and even war. It is for this reason that people on opposite sides of political and social issues rarely make any progress. They are too busy lumping each other into categories that make it easier to justify their own flawed positions.
Wow. I mean, WOW. I find this offensive on so many levels. Let me just explain them one by one:
First, regarding this statement:
"While the nominally pro-life side may zealously defend the sanctity of life at one stage(the pre-natal stage), they often seem strangely indifferent to life once that life has left the womb."
I am the mother of four healthy, happy children and I can tell you that I am in no way indifferent to life once that life has left the womb. In fact, I have given up just about everything to see to it that my children are well cared for: career, money, financial security, professional respect, autonomy, freedom, health, etc. How can you make such a disgusting generalization?
And as for indifference on a wider scale, lest you forget, we do have laws regarding the neglect and abuse of children. We have laws that punish parents who don't properly care for their children. We have laws that punish those who hurt children. We even have laws that punish those who kill children. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people who are pro-life support and agree with these laws.
What we don't have is a law that punishes those who kill their own children in the womb; a stage of life that you clearly define as legitimate. I find it ludicrous that one young woman can have an abortion and face no legal consequences, while another young woman who throws her baby in the dumpster right after giving birth is arrested. Tell me, what exactly is the legal difference between those two scenarios, other than time and place?
I also find the following offensive:
"Pro-life shouldn't simply be about forcing expectant mothers to carry their babies to term, but rather about ensuring they have the medical, financial, and emotional support which will help reduce the feelings of desperation and isolation which lead many women to seek abortions."
First of all, your wording reveals a tactic that I am going to call you out on right now:
Based on that first sentence alone, one might imagine a helpless young maiden being marched by jack-booted officers to a skeezy free clinic in which the nurses cackle gleefully as the poor girl screams in agony during childbirth because the disapproving, moralistic medical staff refuses to give her anesthesia of any kind. Give me a break. What is this, a Lifetime movie of the week? Don't manipulate your readers with emotion-based, pseudo-logic. Even though it is effective (because good people are moved by compassion for others, as they should be), it's intellectually unethical, and you know it.
Second, this issue is not about social reforms needed to improve the condition of the poor and the underprivileged. This issue is about one thing, and one thing only. Should we or should we not, as a society, allow a mother (and her doctor) to end the life of her child? All of those other ramblings about lack of medical, financial and emotional support are just distractions to avoid answering the question.
Third, let me just educate you a little bit about feelings of desperation and isolation. Any woman who has spent eight hours (or more) a day at home taking care of small children could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject of desperation and isolation. How much compassion would you have for that same mother if she decided to end the lives of her children because she was poor, depressed and lonely? How much compassion did any of us have for the woman who drowned five of her children in the bathtub several years ago because she was dealing with those very issues? Certainly not enough to pat her on the back, tell her how brave she was, and send her on her way.
Desperation, loneliness, despair; these are characteristic of the human condition and do not justify the practice of human sacrifice. Because that is exactly what we are talking about here. Sacrificing the lives of millions of human beings so that their mothers won't have to struggle. Really? There's no other alternative?
And the most horrifying of all:
"I'd be more inclined to support the efforts of self-described pro-life advocates if they seemed more genuinely interested in “the sanctity of life,” and less interested in punishing those who have sinned."
So, for you, it's not that you think the pro-lifers are wrong, it's just that they're so damned annoying. In reality, if they weren't all such a bunch of crazy religious zealots (again with the broad, inaccurate generalizations) and were more supportive of the social programs that you proscribe, you would gladly stand up and shout out against legalized abortion. But because they aren't, you will make your point by sitting quietly by and allowing, even supporting, an action that is akin to the Holocaust. Horrible.
In the end, the most destructive thing about this post is not the self-serving arguments or the ridiculous stereotyping, but rather the blatant and overreaching assumption about the correlation between a pro-life stance and stances on other completely irrelevant social issues. For such an enlightened, thoughtful blogger, you are very quick to place everyone who is “pro-life” into identical schools of thought regarding such diverse topics as housing, health care, education, the death penalty, and even war. It is for this reason that people on opposite sides of political and social issues rarely make any progress. They are too busy lumping each other into categories that make it easier to justify their own flawed positions.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Entitlement Generation
According to Salon.com, there is a new trend burgeoning in the wake of massive unemployment and layoffs in America. Among young, hip, unemployed professional types, the use of SNAP(formerly food stamps) to sustain their very chic, urban “foodie” lifestyles has become an acceptable way of life. The argument goes that buying organic, fresh produce and free range meat is much healthier and therefore less costly in the long run than the processed government subsidized garbage you find on most grocery store shelves. Eating this way is a great way to reduce overall health care costs. It's true. In fact, I think that anyone using the SNAP program should be required to buy fresh, organic food whenever it's available and cook from scratch.
What I have a problem with is that a lot of these “foodies” aren't just buying healthy. They are buying chic, trendy, expensive food. That's right, I said trendy food. It's a whole new style statement. Instead of just shopping in the organic section of the local supermarket, they continue to frequent specialty shops that sell things like artisan breads and gourmet cheeses. I love those stores as well. I think they are wonderful places to shop and they always smell great. But I would never ask other people who are struggling themselves to give me money for groceries and then spend it at places like that, when I could get perfectly good, healthy food for less somewhere else.
Truly, the comments I have read on blogs regarding this topic are astounding. Many people, like me, are incensed at the selfish attitudes of people abusing this program. But others justify it in various ways. Generally the comments ended up falling into the sniveling category of “Don't you judge me!” which is just another way of saying, “yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing it, but I waaant to, and the alternative is too haaard, so I'm going to make you look like a big fat meanie to divert attention from my selfish behavior.”
Obviously, sometimes there is no alternative and people need assistance. Unemployment is incredibly high right now and these government aid programs we have are designed to get people through those rough spots. But they are to be used as a safety net when all other alternatives have been exhausted. And when these programs are used, they are to be used sparingly and with careful consideration so as not to place more of a burden than necessary upon the people who are assisting you. One of the problems that I see is that many of the participants in these programs do not equate the assistance they are receiving with those who are giving it. In their minds, it just comes from a big government entity that has no face or name. In reality, every dime that goes toward the SNAP program and others like it is a dime that comes out of the pockets of hardworking people with families of their own to feed.
Last year was the first time in 15 years of marriage that my husband and I did not qualify for government assistance programs. We finally made enough money for the government to consider us able to care for ourselves with out any help. Whew! We were so relieved! Out of those 15 years (and let me tell you, there were some lean years), do you know how many times we utilized those programs? Zero. Zilch. Nada. And let me tell you why. When we were newlyweds and contemplating our future, we made some decisions about what we wanted to do with our lives and how we wanted to live them. Those choices included graduate school, a large family, and me being a stay-at-home mom. One of the consequences of those choices was (at least for a while) poverty. There were many times when we struggled just to put food on the table and keep our kids in shoes. We lived in crummy little rentals and drove beat-up old cars and grew a garden. Our family vacations consisted of driving seven hours to visit relatives (this was when gas was very cheap), staying gratefully in their home for the duration of the visit, and then driving seven hours home. My kids almost always wore hand-me-downs and I can count on one hand the number of times I have bought clothing for myself at an actual retail clothing store and not at a second-hand store like Goodwill or The Salvation Army(and let me tell you, that was a challenge because I love beautiful, good quality clothes). The thought of getting my nails done, having lunch with friends, or getting an expensive, high quality haircut was just ridiculous. Any books or movies we wanted, we checked out of the public library.
For a long time we lived on my husband's tiny graduate stipend. When we realized that it wasn't going to pay the bills, we didn't get government assistance, but took out student loans which we knew we would have to pay off later. Then there were times when the combination of the stipend and the student loans still wasn't cutting it, so instead of increasing our loans or getting government assistance, my husband took a job over the summer installing air conditioning systems. This was nasty, hot, dirty work involving insulation and backbreaking labor. It was hard, but he did it. There were times when our parents helped us pay for health or car insurance, or when they loaned us money when our beat up old car finally died for good and we needed to buy another beat-up old car to get us around. We used whatever help they gave us gratefully and sparingly and paid back every loan as soon as we could.
Here's the point of this story: At ANY TIME during this long stretch of hardship, had it been too much for us, we could have changed course. In fact, we considered it many times. My husband could have dropped out of Grad school and taken a full time job. I could have gone back to work. We could have limited our procreative choices to one or even two children(we have four). But NEVER would we have expected others, complete strangers no less, to financially support us when we weren't willing to do EVERYTHING in our power to take care of ourselves. This attitude shouldn't be the exception, it should be the rule. This was the attitude of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-parents during the Great Depression. People during that time were actually starving to death, not just being forced to give up brand name clothing and organic roast rabbit with chutney and cranberry sauce.
And lest you think I am blowing this concept of entitlement way out of proportion to prove my point, let me just share a few personal, true-life stories based on real people I have known. A few years ago, when my husband was finally out of school and teaching at a university, we knew several young couples in grad school with small children. One couple was receiving government benefits in the form of WIC, food stamps and reduced housing. They did this so that they wouldn't have to take out student loans and be in debt when they got out of school. Apparently, the taxes being taken out of my husband's already meager paycheck were just the thing to keep them out of debt. Another couple was receiving WIC, food stamps and Medicare. This couple was having as many babies as they could, as fast as they could, because when they were done with school (he was in law school at the time) they would be making far too much money for them to qualify for Medicare and the babies would no longer be “free”. I contemplated this as I gave birth to my fourth child and then payed the doctor for her services. Again, good thing everyone else was paying taxes, or they would have had to wait and pay for their own babies. Both of these couples were friends of ours, and we loved them dearly. But it infuriated me that with our still very limited financial means, we, along with many other hardworking families, were financing these two couples' educations after struggling for so long to be responsible for our own choices.
More recently I was talking with a friend who told me that even though on Medicare, she was having trouble paying for some of her children's health care needs that Medicare doesn't cover. Furthermore, she was complaining about it. She felt that Medicare should be more comprehensive in its coverage. This friend lives in a beautiful new home, drives a very nice SUV, wears clothing that I can't afford, and is currently planning a family vacation that will cost (on the low end) at least $1,500. Also, they are in the process of finishing the basement of their home – not a cheap remodeling project.
My husband and I are also planning to remodel our basement. However, we will have to wait until we have the funds to pay for it. Currently, most of our money is going toward groceries, doctor visits, dental care and other expenses – all paid by us, coincidentally.
These are just people I know personally. But here are some other opinions from various people who feel that living high on government assistance is nothing short of noble and shouldn't be criticized by those of us who are paying for it.
From the Salon.com article titled “Hipsters on Food Stamps”:
"Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30- somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off the old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese."
Well, isn't it great that these young, up and coming, educated professionals are shaking off the old, worn-out taboos surrounding laziness, selfishness, and living off other people's hard work. Good for them!
And here is a comment by a woman who's blog brags about her ability to throw dinner parties (complete with expensive wine), employ a part-time nanny, and buy an Armani jacket on Ebay – at a reduced price, of course – all while using food stamps and WIC. She defends herself against a torrent of criticism by saying the following:
"going on the 'dole' is not a choice. If I had it my way, I would still be making $75K and my husband $150K. But we don't. We make $405 a week for a family of 5. we don't like to eat crap and we happen to like cafe bustelo ($2.99) over folgers ($2.49). we buy blueberries for our kids and freeze them for their pancakes and desserts. We buy quality products because we think long term. We don't milk the system, we thank the system. If you have not been laid off yet, you would not understand."
Again, no problems with the blueberries for the kiddies, but if you are so broke that other people have to support you, don't you think you need to let the nanny go and forgo clothing purchases for a while?
Somehow, our culture has gone from one of hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility to one of handouts, bailouts and entitlement. And it seems to have happened in only a few generations. I would love to hear what my now deceased grandmother (a woman who raised 8 kids on a tiny military salary in an 800 square foot home) would say about people using food stamps to buy Perrier and artisan breads. Most likely it would contain some pretty foul language.
What I have a problem with is that a lot of these “foodies” aren't just buying healthy. They are buying chic, trendy, expensive food. That's right, I said trendy food. It's a whole new style statement. Instead of just shopping in the organic section of the local supermarket, they continue to frequent specialty shops that sell things like artisan breads and gourmet cheeses. I love those stores as well. I think they are wonderful places to shop and they always smell great. But I would never ask other people who are struggling themselves to give me money for groceries and then spend it at places like that, when I could get perfectly good, healthy food for less somewhere else.
Truly, the comments I have read on blogs regarding this topic are astounding. Many people, like me, are incensed at the selfish attitudes of people abusing this program. But others justify it in various ways. Generally the comments ended up falling into the sniveling category of “Don't you judge me!” which is just another way of saying, “yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing it, but I waaant to, and the alternative is too haaard, so I'm going to make you look like a big fat meanie to divert attention from my selfish behavior.”
Obviously, sometimes there is no alternative and people need assistance. Unemployment is incredibly high right now and these government aid programs we have are designed to get people through those rough spots. But they are to be used as a safety net when all other alternatives have been exhausted. And when these programs are used, they are to be used sparingly and with careful consideration so as not to place more of a burden than necessary upon the people who are assisting you. One of the problems that I see is that many of the participants in these programs do not equate the assistance they are receiving with those who are giving it. In their minds, it just comes from a big government entity that has no face or name. In reality, every dime that goes toward the SNAP program and others like it is a dime that comes out of the pockets of hardworking people with families of their own to feed.
Last year was the first time in 15 years of marriage that my husband and I did not qualify for government assistance programs. We finally made enough money for the government to consider us able to care for ourselves with out any help. Whew! We were so relieved! Out of those 15 years (and let me tell you, there were some lean years), do you know how many times we utilized those programs? Zero. Zilch. Nada. And let me tell you why. When we were newlyweds and contemplating our future, we made some decisions about what we wanted to do with our lives and how we wanted to live them. Those choices included graduate school, a large family, and me being a stay-at-home mom. One of the consequences of those choices was (at least for a while) poverty. There were many times when we struggled just to put food on the table and keep our kids in shoes. We lived in crummy little rentals and drove beat-up old cars and grew a garden. Our family vacations consisted of driving seven hours to visit relatives (this was when gas was very cheap), staying gratefully in their home for the duration of the visit, and then driving seven hours home. My kids almost always wore hand-me-downs and I can count on one hand the number of times I have bought clothing for myself at an actual retail clothing store and not at a second-hand store like Goodwill or The Salvation Army(and let me tell you, that was a challenge because I love beautiful, good quality clothes). The thought of getting my nails done, having lunch with friends, or getting an expensive, high quality haircut was just ridiculous. Any books or movies we wanted, we checked out of the public library.
For a long time we lived on my husband's tiny graduate stipend. When we realized that it wasn't going to pay the bills, we didn't get government assistance, but took out student loans which we knew we would have to pay off later. Then there were times when the combination of the stipend and the student loans still wasn't cutting it, so instead of increasing our loans or getting government assistance, my husband took a job over the summer installing air conditioning systems. This was nasty, hot, dirty work involving insulation and backbreaking labor. It was hard, but he did it. There were times when our parents helped us pay for health or car insurance, or when they loaned us money when our beat up old car finally died for good and we needed to buy another beat-up old car to get us around. We used whatever help they gave us gratefully and sparingly and paid back every loan as soon as we could.
Here's the point of this story: At ANY TIME during this long stretch of hardship, had it been too much for us, we could have changed course. In fact, we considered it many times. My husband could have dropped out of Grad school and taken a full time job. I could have gone back to work. We could have limited our procreative choices to one or even two children(we have four). But NEVER would we have expected others, complete strangers no less, to financially support us when we weren't willing to do EVERYTHING in our power to take care of ourselves. This attitude shouldn't be the exception, it should be the rule. This was the attitude of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-parents during the Great Depression. People during that time were actually starving to death, not just being forced to give up brand name clothing and organic roast rabbit with chutney and cranberry sauce.
And lest you think I am blowing this concept of entitlement way out of proportion to prove my point, let me just share a few personal, true-life stories based on real people I have known. A few years ago, when my husband was finally out of school and teaching at a university, we knew several young couples in grad school with small children. One couple was receiving government benefits in the form of WIC, food stamps and reduced housing. They did this so that they wouldn't have to take out student loans and be in debt when they got out of school. Apparently, the taxes being taken out of my husband's already meager paycheck were just the thing to keep them out of debt. Another couple was receiving WIC, food stamps and Medicare. This couple was having as many babies as they could, as fast as they could, because when they were done with school (he was in law school at the time) they would be making far too much money for them to qualify for Medicare and the babies would no longer be “free”. I contemplated this as I gave birth to my fourth child and then payed the doctor for her services. Again, good thing everyone else was paying taxes, or they would have had to wait and pay for their own babies. Both of these couples were friends of ours, and we loved them dearly. But it infuriated me that with our still very limited financial means, we, along with many other hardworking families, were financing these two couples' educations after struggling for so long to be responsible for our own choices.
More recently I was talking with a friend who told me that even though on Medicare, she was having trouble paying for some of her children's health care needs that Medicare doesn't cover. Furthermore, she was complaining about it. She felt that Medicare should be more comprehensive in its coverage. This friend lives in a beautiful new home, drives a very nice SUV, wears clothing that I can't afford, and is currently planning a family vacation that will cost (on the low end) at least $1,500. Also, they are in the process of finishing the basement of their home – not a cheap remodeling project.
My husband and I are also planning to remodel our basement. However, we will have to wait until we have the funds to pay for it. Currently, most of our money is going toward groceries, doctor visits, dental care and other expenses – all paid by us, coincidentally.
These are just people I know personally. But here are some other opinions from various people who feel that living high on government assistance is nothing short of noble and shouldn't be criticized by those of us who are paying for it.
From the Salon.com article titled “Hipsters on Food Stamps”:
"Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30- somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off the old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese."
Well, isn't it great that these young, up and coming, educated professionals are shaking off the old, worn-out taboos surrounding laziness, selfishness, and living off other people's hard work. Good for them!
And here is a comment by a woman who's blog brags about her ability to throw dinner parties (complete with expensive wine), employ a part-time nanny, and buy an Armani jacket on Ebay – at a reduced price, of course – all while using food stamps and WIC. She defends herself against a torrent of criticism by saying the following:
"going on the 'dole' is not a choice. If I had it my way, I would still be making $75K and my husband $150K. But we don't. We make $405 a week for a family of 5. we don't like to eat crap and we happen to like cafe bustelo ($2.99) over folgers ($2.49). we buy blueberries for our kids and freeze them for their pancakes and desserts. We buy quality products because we think long term. We don't milk the system, we thank the system. If you have not been laid off yet, you would not understand."
Again, no problems with the blueberries for the kiddies, but if you are so broke that other people have to support you, don't you think you need to let the nanny go and forgo clothing purchases for a while?
Somehow, our culture has gone from one of hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility to one of handouts, bailouts and entitlement. And it seems to have happened in only a few generations. I would love to hear what my now deceased grandmother (a woman who raised 8 kids on a tiny military salary in an 800 square foot home) would say about people using food stamps to buy Perrier and artisan breads. Most likely it would contain some pretty foul language.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
On Pedophiles and Wolves
A convicted sex offender has moved into our neighborhood. A pedophile. All of the neighbors have been notified. The Bishopric read a prewritten statement in each Sunday School class at church. On Mother's Day, no less. I guess it wasn't something they wanted to wait on. I'm sure after church that day everyone else went home and found the sex offender registry website and looked him up and read what he did, just like me. It was heinous and violent and he did it to his own little daughter. It was almost twenty years ago. He served his time in prison and now he is out and he lives down the street.
The statement by the Bishopric was straightforward and cautious. We were advised to be very careful and protect our children, but also to have compassion and show an example of Christ-like behavior. It was appropriately even-handed, and the responsible position for religious leaders to take in this situation. I knew it was coming ahead of time, because of my position in the Relief Society, but even so, a deep rage surfaced in me with such force that I couldn't hold back my tears; I began to shake uncontrollably and had to leave the room. I wonder who else felt the same.
I also wonder what will change. Something like this certainly creates a ripple through a neighborhood. I don't envision anyone putting up posters with his face on it, like they did in his last neighborhood in California, or throwing bricks through his window with threatening notes tied to them. People here have not yet reached that saturation point. I don't imagine that anything unsavory will happen to him. And I'm sure that those people in the neighborhood without small children at home will show a degree of friendliness toward him, to provide him with some sense of belonging, and that those of us who do have children at home will shun him completely, as we feel we must.
What I really wonder about, though, is not the interaction between us and him. What interests me is what will happen within the us. What attitudes will show themselves. This is the sort of thing that brings out the best and the worst in people. I wonder if those who have always been kind, compassionate, caring people will, in this case, have no compassion. And if those who seem hard-nosed and intolerant of everyone and everything will end up being the ones who offer a hand of friendship. In all honesty, I myself can only seem to feel rage. The compassion that I should feel for someone trying to redeem themselves simply isn't there. I find myself fantasizing about a situation in which he looks at one of my children and gives me the justification I need to take a baseball bat and beat him bloody and senseless in the middle of the street. It's horrible, I know. But again, I can't help but wonder who else feels the same.
I also wonder about those who have already voiced their firm opinion about forgiveness and second chances. What is it about this group that allows them to overlook such horrors and find that compassion that I so obviously lack? I would like to think that it is naivetee on their part as to the unwavering predatory nature of a pedophile, or the fact that they raised their children in the pre-pedophile-rampant eras of the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. But maybe that's not it. Maybe they understand something that I don't. Or maybe I understand something that they don't. I guess we'll never really know.
And what will the character of our community be in 1 year, or 5 years, or even 10 years that it wouldn't have been had this man not moved in next door? What actions will each of us take that will reveal something about ourselves that otherwise would have never surfaced? And the very act of that revealing - will it change the individual? An attitude of compassion or lack thereof might give life to a part of a person's nature that will take them in a different direction entirely. Or it might expose them in some way that will alter who they are because of how others now see them. Like my little mini-meltdown in church after the "big announcement". How did that revelation of my personal feelings affect the people around me and their perception of me? And how will that change the future of our relationships?
Essentially, it isn't so much about the individual, but about the dynamic of the group. What relationships will solidify based on similar reactions and opinions that wouldn't have otherwise? And what divisions might arise because of the differences?
There is a Native American proverb, in which a grandfather explains to his grandson about the two wolves that live inside of him - one good and one evil - that are always fighting for control. The grandson asks, "how do you know which one will win?" to which the grandfather replies, "the wolf that will win is the one that you feed." In this case, which is the evil wolf and which is the good? What if the result of forgiveness and compassion is that another child is abused? What if the result of righteous anger and indignation is that our children learn to hate and be afraid? Is one worse than the other? Will we ever really know?
The statement by the Bishopric was straightforward and cautious. We were advised to be very careful and protect our children, but also to have compassion and show an example of Christ-like behavior. It was appropriately even-handed, and the responsible position for religious leaders to take in this situation. I knew it was coming ahead of time, because of my position in the Relief Society, but even so, a deep rage surfaced in me with such force that I couldn't hold back my tears; I began to shake uncontrollably and had to leave the room. I wonder who else felt the same.
I also wonder what will change. Something like this certainly creates a ripple through a neighborhood. I don't envision anyone putting up posters with his face on it, like they did in his last neighborhood in California, or throwing bricks through his window with threatening notes tied to them. People here have not yet reached that saturation point. I don't imagine that anything unsavory will happen to him. And I'm sure that those people in the neighborhood without small children at home will show a degree of friendliness toward him, to provide him with some sense of belonging, and that those of us who do have children at home will shun him completely, as we feel we must.
What I really wonder about, though, is not the interaction between us and him. What interests me is what will happen within the us. What attitudes will show themselves. This is the sort of thing that brings out the best and the worst in people. I wonder if those who have always been kind, compassionate, caring people will, in this case, have no compassion. And if those who seem hard-nosed and intolerant of everyone and everything will end up being the ones who offer a hand of friendship. In all honesty, I myself can only seem to feel rage. The compassion that I should feel for someone trying to redeem themselves simply isn't there. I find myself fantasizing about a situation in which he looks at one of my children and gives me the justification I need to take a baseball bat and beat him bloody and senseless in the middle of the street. It's horrible, I know. But again, I can't help but wonder who else feels the same.
I also wonder about those who have already voiced their firm opinion about forgiveness and second chances. What is it about this group that allows them to overlook such horrors and find that compassion that I so obviously lack? I would like to think that it is naivetee on their part as to the unwavering predatory nature of a pedophile, or the fact that they raised their children in the pre-pedophile-rampant eras of the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. But maybe that's not it. Maybe they understand something that I don't. Or maybe I understand something that they don't. I guess we'll never really know.
And what will the character of our community be in 1 year, or 5 years, or even 10 years that it wouldn't have been had this man not moved in next door? What actions will each of us take that will reveal something about ourselves that otherwise would have never surfaced? And the very act of that revealing - will it change the individual? An attitude of compassion or lack thereof might give life to a part of a person's nature that will take them in a different direction entirely. Or it might expose them in some way that will alter who they are because of how others now see them. Like my little mini-meltdown in church after the "big announcement". How did that revelation of my personal feelings affect the people around me and their perception of me? And how will that change the future of our relationships?
Essentially, it isn't so much about the individual, but about the dynamic of the group. What relationships will solidify based on similar reactions and opinions that wouldn't have otherwise? And what divisions might arise because of the differences?
There is a Native American proverb, in which a grandfather explains to his grandson about the two wolves that live inside of him - one good and one evil - that are always fighting for control. The grandson asks, "how do you know which one will win?" to which the grandfather replies, "the wolf that will win is the one that you feed." In this case, which is the evil wolf and which is the good? What if the result of forgiveness and compassion is that another child is abused? What if the result of righteous anger and indignation is that our children learn to hate and be afraid? Is one worse than the other? Will we ever really know?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Infant Mortality Rate: Not So Much...
One of the things that makes our lives so complicated is the enormous amount of information that is now available to us, and the inability to sort through and analyze it all. Because of this information overload, we don't always know if what we are reading or hearing on the news is accurate or within the proper context. Unfortunately, people in various positions of power often use this to manipulate our thinking to suit their own purposes. This deception bothers me. A lot. Lying is something that I find particularly reprehensible. Just ask my kids.
So I wanted to address a "fact" that has been used to support the recent passage of a very expensive health care bill in Congress. Here it is: the United States has the highest Infant Mortality Rate of all first world nations. When I heard that, it didn't make sense. The United States, with the most advanced medical technology in the world, has more babies dying every year than countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe? So I decided to do a little research of my own.
This is what I found:
In fact, the United States does have a higher IMR than many other countries; 32 other countries in fact. But the reasons for this have nothing to do with poor health care.
Reporting Differences. Infant Mortality Rates are calculated based on children born alive who die within the first year. This does not include still births. Live births are defined in different countries by different standards. In the United States, babies born at any gestational age, of any size, showing any signs of life (breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement or crying) are included in the numbers of live births. Some countries only count babies born after a certain gestational age or over a certain weight or displaying only certain signs of life, like breathing. All others are counted as still births, and are not reported in the Infant Mortality Rate, which drives down their numbers.
Better technology in the United States. Yes, I said better technology. One of the biggest factors in the survival of premature babies is the availability of a NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). The United states has an average of one NICU for every 2,766 births, whereas the United Kingdom has one NICU for every 89,764 births. Japan is one of the only countries that even comes close to the United States, with one NICU for every 3,633 births.
In the United States, a baby born prematurely has a much better chance of being born alive and surviving, even if only for a short time, than any other country in the world. Therefore, more births in the United States will be included in the Infant Mortality numbers than in other country.
Also, the increase in fertility treatments in the United States in the past few years has increased the rate of multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), which also increases the number of premature births. This is an additional factor that adds to the IMR in the United States.
So, yes, the Infant Mortality Rate in the United States is higher than many other first world countries, but it isn't because we have terrible health care or that people don't have access to it. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a politician, journalist or radio talk show host throwing out a "fact" to support their particular side. It might not be exactly what it seems.
So I wanted to address a "fact" that has been used to support the recent passage of a very expensive health care bill in Congress. Here it is: the United States has the highest Infant Mortality Rate of all first world nations. When I heard that, it didn't make sense. The United States, with the most advanced medical technology in the world, has more babies dying every year than countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe? So I decided to do a little research of my own.
This is what I found:
In fact, the United States does have a higher IMR than many other countries; 32 other countries in fact. But the reasons for this have nothing to do with poor health care.
Reporting Differences. Infant Mortality Rates are calculated based on children born alive who die within the first year. This does not include still births. Live births are defined in different countries by different standards. In the United States, babies born at any gestational age, of any size, showing any signs of life (breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement or crying) are included in the numbers of live births. Some countries only count babies born after a certain gestational age or over a certain weight or displaying only certain signs of life, like breathing. All others are counted as still births, and are not reported in the Infant Mortality Rate, which drives down their numbers.
Better technology in the United States. Yes, I said better technology. One of the biggest factors in the survival of premature babies is the availability of a NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). The United states has an average of one NICU for every 2,766 births, whereas the United Kingdom has one NICU for every 89,764 births. Japan is one of the only countries that even comes close to the United States, with one NICU for every 3,633 births.
In the United States, a baby born prematurely has a much better chance of being born alive and surviving, even if only for a short time, than any other country in the world. Therefore, more births in the United States will be included in the Infant Mortality numbers than in other country.
Also, the increase in fertility treatments in the United States in the past few years has increased the rate of multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), which also increases the number of premature births. This is an additional factor that adds to the IMR in the United States.
So, yes, the Infant Mortality Rate in the United States is higher than many other first world countries, but it isn't because we have terrible health care or that people don't have access to it. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a politician, journalist or radio talk show host throwing out a "fact" to support their particular side. It might not be exactly what it seems.
California's Proposition 8
This is something I wrote a while ago and posted on my family blog. I moved it to this one because it's more in line with what this blog is about. Besides that, it is pretty controversial and won't win me many friends, so in the spirit of philosophical honesty, I thought it would be a good start.
California's Proposition 8
The protests that have been taking place all around the country regarding the passing of Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman) have caused me quite a bit of concern. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
Since so many of my dear friends are very involved in (and very angry about) the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and since so much of that anger is directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(of which I am a devout member) for supporting it, let me just present another side that you may not have considered...First, contrary to what many would like you to believe, this issue has NOTHING to do with hatred or bigotry, at least not from those who have a real grasp of what this issue is about. Anyone who claims to be a devout Christian cannot at the same time promote hatred towards their fellow man(or woman). It would be in direct conflict with one of the most important doctrines of Christ. And the majority of the people who support this amendment are devoutly religious, mostly Christian. The ONLY logical reason to support this amendment is religious, so those who aren't that devout in a specific faith shouldn't particularly care one way or another how marriage is defined.
This issue has everything to do with protection of religious freedom. Marriage is not, and has never been, a state institution. it is a religious ceremony that is only truly significant because it was instituted by God. It has been "adopted" by most governments of the world, over time, as the most efficient way to regulate it's citizens for the purposes of taxes, record keeping, etc. Additionally, in the middle ages in Europe, the church and the state virtually became one, causing the religious ceremony of marriage to be completely intertwined with the function of the State.
Until now, that hasn't been a problem for the majority, because most people agreed on the definition of marriage. And because such attitudes have been held in common for so long, there was no need to address this issue in the law. However, over the past 10 plus years, that status quo has begun to change. Obviously, attitudes have changed on the morality of homosexuality. Because of that, there have been cases in which people who hold a religious belief about a particular issue are being forced, by virtue of anti-discrimination law and the courts, to act in ways that are in direct conflict with what they believe.
If marriage can be defined as two men or two women, how do certain religious leaders avoid being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? How do individuals avoid certain professional situations that violate their religious beliefs about marriage? What about the fertility doctor who doesn't want to assist a gay couple in having a child because she believes that it is wrong? What about a photographer who would be uncomfortable photographing a wedding between two men?
These situations are becoming more common as the moral status quo changes in our country. This amendment is an attempt to address this issue before it gets to be a terrible, hateful conflict. Unfortunately, because of our inability to be collectively reasonable in our dialogue with each other, that is happening anyway. Right now we are without precedent and are feeling our way in the dark as to how to handle these issues. This amendment is designed to protect people who hold strong religious views about marriage from being forced to do things that go against that belief.
Now, I know that some of you are thinking - So what? That belief is wrong. But before you jump on that bandwagon, stop and think. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, even if others don't agree with it. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Remember, marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Until now, it has been allowed to exist as a state institution for the convenience of the government and the populace. But now that the commonly held beliefs on marriage are being challenged, we have to take it out and examine it and see it for what it really is in order to keep from violating freedom of religion.
You may not understand why people like me feel so strongly about marriage, but the fact that it is such a central part of my religion makes it imperative that my rights to practice that belief the way I see fit are protected.
I know that many of you who read this will probably be angry that I hold this view, and I'm sorry for that. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and the thought of creating a rift between myself and friends who I love and care for deeply causes me great heartache. But I have to be true to what I believe, even if that belief isn't very popular. Let me assure you again - this issue is NOT about hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc., at least not from my end. It pains me that this issue has become about that instead of being an opportunity to have an intelligent, respectful conversation about how to deal with our differences. Here's hoping that someday we will get to that point...
California's Proposition 8
The protests that have been taking place all around the country regarding the passing of Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman) have caused me quite a bit of concern. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
Since so many of my dear friends are very involved in (and very angry about) the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and since so much of that anger is directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(of which I am a devout member) for supporting it, let me just present another side that you may not have considered...First, contrary to what many would like you to believe, this issue has NOTHING to do with hatred or bigotry, at least not from those who have a real grasp of what this issue is about. Anyone who claims to be a devout Christian cannot at the same time promote hatred towards their fellow man(or woman). It would be in direct conflict with one of the most important doctrines of Christ. And the majority of the people who support this amendment are devoutly religious, mostly Christian. The ONLY logical reason to support this amendment is religious, so those who aren't that devout in a specific faith shouldn't particularly care one way or another how marriage is defined.
This issue has everything to do with protection of religious freedom. Marriage is not, and has never been, a state institution. it is a religious ceremony that is only truly significant because it was instituted by God. It has been "adopted" by most governments of the world, over time, as the most efficient way to regulate it's citizens for the purposes of taxes, record keeping, etc. Additionally, in the middle ages in Europe, the church and the state virtually became one, causing the religious ceremony of marriage to be completely intertwined with the function of the State.
Until now, that hasn't been a problem for the majority, because most people agreed on the definition of marriage. And because such attitudes have been held in common for so long, there was no need to address this issue in the law. However, over the past 10 plus years, that status quo has begun to change. Obviously, attitudes have changed on the morality of homosexuality. Because of that, there have been cases in which people who hold a religious belief about a particular issue are being forced, by virtue of anti-discrimination law and the courts, to act in ways that are in direct conflict with what they believe.
If marriage can be defined as two men or two women, how do certain religious leaders avoid being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? How do individuals avoid certain professional situations that violate their religious beliefs about marriage? What about the fertility doctor who doesn't want to assist a gay couple in having a child because she believes that it is wrong? What about a photographer who would be uncomfortable photographing a wedding between two men?
These situations are becoming more common as the moral status quo changes in our country. This amendment is an attempt to address this issue before it gets to be a terrible, hateful conflict. Unfortunately, because of our inability to be collectively reasonable in our dialogue with each other, that is happening anyway. Right now we are without precedent and are feeling our way in the dark as to how to handle these issues. This amendment is designed to protect people who hold strong religious views about marriage from being forced to do things that go against that belief.
Now, I know that some of you are thinking - So what? That belief is wrong. But before you jump on that bandwagon, stop and think. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, even if others don't agree with it. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Remember, marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Until now, it has been allowed to exist as a state institution for the convenience of the government and the populace. But now that the commonly held beliefs on marriage are being challenged, we have to take it out and examine it and see it for what it really is in order to keep from violating freedom of religion.
You may not understand why people like me feel so strongly about marriage, but the fact that it is such a central part of my religion makes it imperative that my rights to practice that belief the way I see fit are protected.
I know that many of you who read this will probably be angry that I hold this view, and I'm sorry for that. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and the thought of creating a rift between myself and friends who I love and care for deeply causes me great heartache. But I have to be true to what I believe, even if that belief isn't very popular. Let me assure you again - this issue is NOT about hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc., at least not from my end. It pains me that this issue has become about that instead of being an opportunity to have an intelligent, respectful conversation about how to deal with our differences. Here's hoping that someday we will get to that point...
The Start of Something
I really should be writing it all down. Maybe someday my children and grandchildren will want to read it. Maybe someone else will want to read it. Who knows? I write in snippets and in stops and starts. It isn't very coherent. I read in bursts. It isn't very consistent. I think deeply about things and I want to have more to think about and a place to put it. I want to have the tenacity to always be reading something and thinking about it, not just devouring it like a beggar at feast. This is the place for it, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)