The Tsunami

The tsunami that hit the coast of India, Pakistan, and numerous small islands is a devastating natural disaster. As are, I suppose, all natural disasters. But so many, many lives have been lost in this one, and the number is growing.

Reading about a mother choosing which son to let go of is almost too unbearable. Although he was found later alive and unharmed is secondary. For a parent to be put in that kind of position is frightening, reminding me that all of us who are parents and, therefore, protectors of innocence, are really no less vulnerable than the rest of the people on the planet.

I feel helpless. Prayer and donations to relief organizations, while the best choice, don't seem to be enough. A failure of my faith? Perhaps. I don't doubt that, given enough resources, people can be helped. But it doesn't not return the feeling of security that had been ripped away with 9/11 and has just tentatively started to rebuild.

I expect that the apocolyptic Christians will point to this as a sign of the end times. Maybe so. But one can argue that we have been in the "end times" since the ressurection and ascension of Jesus. Certainly the writers of the New Testament epistles felt that we shouldn't try to figure out when the end would be here, but instead be prepared daily. In the meantime, we cannot waste our time thinking about when the final battle might be fought, but instead look to take care of humanity now.

Which brings me back to what we can or cannot do for the survivors of the tsunami. I am too chicken to volunteer my time to go help, so the best I can do is pray for support for the brave souls who do go take care of anyone suffering.

If you're reading this, pray. Donate to whichever relief organization you feel comfortable with. I suggest starting with the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, or Lutheran World Relief. But there are so many giving relief, and none of them can do it alone.

And maybe some day I will get over my lazy protectiveness and go do something about it myself.

On being a liberal progressive, a Christian, and anti-war

So we have a president who is a Christian fundamentalist. Many of the people who work for him are Christians as well.

I am a liberal progressive. I am also a Christian.

Since when is going to war a Christian value?

The Christ I worship said in his final commandment to his apostles before he ascended, "Love one another." No qualifications, no limitations, no exceptions. In fact, he cautions his followers to treat everyone as if they would treat him, because they will never know when they are having an encounter with an angel.

Where does war fit into this picture?

Yes, of course, there is always war. People fight for power, and people get hurt.

But Christians are caretakers, not destroyers! And that includes every life.

How ridiculous it is that on one hand we have people who are zealously trying to protect the unborn, even unconceived, children, yet think nothing of taking people who are already here and sending them off to death.

Fight your war, if you want to. But don't you DARE call it a righteous war, or one that God condones.

Rumsfeld

In what has to be one of the most humorous statements by President Bush to date, today he announced that Donald Rumsfeld is doing a fine job.

This if a man whose answer to a reservist who questioned the lack of basic armor was to point out that you can't always go to war with the army you want. Which of course is true when we defend ourselves against attack -- but to start a war that way?

A man who apparently doesn't have time to sign letters of condolences to the families of brave soldiers who have died, and had them done by autopen -- until somebody snitched. Note to the Defense Secretary: Maybe you should find the time now to sign letters of apology to the people who received those letters signed by autopen. The president seems to find the time to sign his letters, and last I checked, he has a broader scope of responsibility.

A man who seems to show up in Iraq less than Al Franken on USO tour. Or maybe he shouldn't -- word is that there are plenty of fighting men and women who are pretty unhappy with Rumsfeld. Ironic, isn't it, that a liberal progressive comedian gets a warmer welcome than the guy in charge?

So, I'm wondering, just what part of the job is Rumsfeld doing so well? Perhaps the president will answer that one when he gives us the details on his plan to privatize Social Security.

Bush on Iraqi soldiers

It is ironic that the president has so readily publicly recognized that the Iraqi troops are not ready to take over from the U.S., when he didn't seem to have a problem starting this war without making certain there was an adequate force behind it.

After lengthened deployments, inadequate protection for reservists, and little or no financial supports for reservists forced to serve months longer than originally told, it is no wonder that there is skepticism.

Perhaps if Rumsfeld and Bush had waited a bit longer before plunging gung ho into battle, we would not now be in what is looking remarkably like a repeat of Vietnam.

Let us hope that the training of the Iraqis continues, and that they have a better handle on how to deal with the insurgents than Defense department.

There have been enough American and Iraqi lives lost already -- let us hope that the Iraqis can soon take over their own country again, and stop the loss of lives.

Baseball and civility

A couple of days ago, a fight broke out between Texas Rangers players and fans in Oakland. During the melee, a player, Frank Francisco, threw a plastic chair in the stands and hit a woman in the nose, injuring her. Her husband, who had started the whole thing by heckling, was standing in front of his wife to "protect" her. When he saw the chair coming, he ducked, and the chair hit his wife in the face instead.

While I feel strongly that it was totally wrong for that chair to be thrown ("Hey, Mom, look! Just like Bobby Knight!"), it's hard to have sympathy for a fan who has season tickets over the opposing team's bullpen just to heckle the players.

And what kind of wuss is he -- "protecting" his wife by standing in front of her, but ducking when the chair was thrown? Unlike her, he saw it coming. Perhaps if he's stood his ground and been "a man" he would have been able to deflect it or catch it. Fans who act like that, though, are a bunch of losers, but so are players who let themselves get sucked into a fight.

Good grief! IT'S A GAME, people! Lighten up! Those players get obscene amounts of money to play a non-contact sport. (Well, unless you're playing in Oakland, apparently.) Fans pay to watch the game -- it seems to me they should be watching and appreciating their own team's playing abilities, not spending their time trying to anger the other team. Do they do this at Little League games, too?

Sportsmanship not only includes players, but should include fan conduct. Certainly a little heckling is expected, but it seems to me that it should be reactionary to the play on the field. That's what was good about the Brett Boone quotes you used -- it showed how fans will react.

But to go specifically to heckle the other team? Huh. That's just plain stupid. (And yes, the "s" word is a "jail word" in our house. But sometimes, there's just not a better word....)

I would enjoy being the judge on this one, but wouldn't it have been even more fun to see this one go into night court?

(former) President Clinton & his bypass surgery

I was dismayed and worried today when the news about Bill Clinton's heart disease unfolded. It was especially worrisome the way it was done, of course, with the news flash, "Former President Clinton in hospital with chest pains!" screamed the notes.

But as it all shook out, it turns out that things are very much under control, and that the recommended quadruple bypass surgery was recommended, and will be performed, before any heart attack could occur. So of course he's in the hospital, he's getting ready for surgery.

Naturally Senator Clinton, and Chelsea, went to be with him, and, naturally, Hillary made a statement. But I slapped my desk and cried, "Go, Hillary!" when I read this quote:

“... We’re delighted we have good health insurance. That makes a big difference. And I hope someday everybody will be able to say the same thing.”

Health care remains at a crisis in this country, and the Republicans, who now have a president who seems to be vaguely pledging to actually do something about affordable health care, without mentioning how to pay for it or when, spent eight years fighting reasonable health care reform, and insulting the First Lady.

I am praying for Bill Clinton, as should everyone. No matter how common bypass surgery is, there is always a risk. I don't think this country is ready to lose Bill Clinton.

It's too bad he won't be able to campaign for John Kerry for a while. But. perhaps, this will slow down the critics from saying nasty things about Clinton, and indirectly help the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Washington's primary system

A confusing, irritating in its negativity flyer came out last week from the Secretary of State, "explaining" the ballot for the September primary. The Supreme Court a few months ago that the established blanket primary was unconstitutional. This was at the behest of the three major parties in the state, since they felt that it detracted from their ability to field the party's most effective candidate in the general election.

The current Secretary of State dislikes the Montana system, where a person votes only one party, but no record of which party the voter chooses is kept, and favors the Louisiana system, which effectively annhialates the parties by having the general election be between the top two vote getters regardless of party affiliation.

Certainly in a democratic society this is a good system, but we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The primaries are mainly designed to let the voters help the parties select their candidate for the general election.

What is amusing is that the Secretary of State's office is suddenly being flooded with angry callers. The Supreme Court ruled on this months ago -- and the legislature has been busy working to try to find a reasonable solution for this primary. People are just now finding this out? Too much time watching CNN and MSNBC and not enough time reading the PI and Times, perhaps.

As far as I can tell, the Secretary of State's responsibility is to make sure the election is fair, legal, and that every citizen have every chance to cast their ballots. It is the legislature's responsibility to set policy, not the Secretary of State's.

I confess I have a hard time understanding what the fuss is about. I have lived where not only one has to register by party, but it was binding at the point. The poll workers themselves had access to a voter's primary history, and the power to refuse a voter the ballot of their choice, based on history, if they felt the voter was trying to cross over for nefarious purposes. I have lived where the primary was in the fall, held well after caucuses and caused the parties confusion when the party's endorsed candidate did not not win the primary.

I could argue that even having a fall primary is a disadvantage -- while it may be fine to select state candidates, the voters do not have a choice in selecting a presidential candidate, since the party conventions are held in the summer. A fall primary makes for a shorter campaign season, but in reality it seems to most favor the candidates with the biggest coffers.

I will be voting in September, and I will be comfortable voting on the Democrat's ballot. I am also supporting a different candidate for secretary of state, someone who is more interested in preserving the integrity of the votes that are cast than in bickering over what system is used.

One alternative has not been raised -- eliminate the cost of a primary, and select candidates merely by caucus. That way the parties themselves endure the entire cost of the selection process.

President John Kerry

This morning my 3rd grade daughter was discussing living a long time, to 100 and beyond. I mentioned that my grandmother is turning 100 next year.

My husband, who is Australian, said, "Too bad she's not living in Australia, she would get a letter of congratulations from the Queen. See how much fun it is to live in a commonwealth country?"

I called out from the bathroom, "When someone turns 100 here they can get a letter from the president."

My daughter proclaimed, "Good! She will get a letter next year from John Kerry and John Edwards!"

Strength and Wisdom are not opposing values

Bill Clinton gave a brilliant speech last night at the Democrat's national convention.  He reminded us of just why he was elected president twice, after a series of one-term presidents. He was interesting, exciting, thoughtful, charismatic, but managed to tread the fine line between loving the limelight and focusing on the job of energizing Americans to pay attention to John Kerry.

Go Bill!

Kerry-Edwards in 2004!

Let's get Bush out of office!

I have always felt this way, but no more so when I read My Life by Bill Clinton. In it we are reminded that in spite of his stupid moral lapse with Monica Lewinksy (who, by the way, must really be naive to still be under the delusion that he was interested in more than dallying), is a brilliant man who wanted to improve life for all Americans. And was pretty successful in spite of having to battle the conservative right and the Republicans for the entire eight years of office. In spite of that, he had enough support in Congress to institute positive change, including cutting spending, creating a balanced budget, instituting the Family Medical Leave Act, implementing the first real welfare reform in years, passing the Brady Bill providing for sensible restrictions on the sale of firearms, and more. Take a look at President George W. Bush's vision for the country, and you will see almost everything the roll back the clock to the days of President Reagan.
 
I remember the days of President Reagan. When his heralded tax cut went into effect, I received a check for $68 in the mail. The following year, my tax return increased by about $50. At the time, one of my bi-monthly paychecks went to rent for a modest one-bedroom apartment, the other check left to provide food and other expenses I had, such as transportation to and from work, clothing, and about $80 in discretionary income. I did see my state income taxes rise as the state was given more unfunded mandates by the federal government.
 
Is that what we want for our next four years? No! Bush's administration's policies are devastating to the environment, to the economy, and to the welfare of the American people. Our constitutional rights are being systematically eroded as he allows himself to fall prey to the paranoia of a fundamentalist extreme group. (Sound familiar?)
 
As a Christian, I am appalled at the justification for war and other actions using the same Bible in which I read Jesus teaching of humility, love and peace. Jesus' last commandment was not, "Fight for the rights of the downtrodden" but "Love one another." At least in my learning, I have been taught, scripturally, that we should make our lives our witness to Christ. How hypocritical is Cheney to claim to be a Christian and then stand before the entire Senate and swear at a member of the Senate, both offending the average person and showing utter disregard for the rules and civility of the U.S. Senate.
 
Like it or not, our founding fathers were adamant about keeping the influence of any religious body from the action of the government. This is so elementary that I am still reeling from the reality of a government that is currently trying to impose a specific interpretation of religious values on the majority of the country.
 
Jimmy Carter and Bush's hero, Ronald Reagan, both lived their faith instead of preaching it. It was their moral compass in their decision making, but they did not try to impress their personal interpretation of faith onto the government.
 
John Kerry is much like that. He is a man of deep faith, but he doesn't feel he needs to focus on that. Instead, he wants to focus on what he can do within the authority of the constitution to ensure that the United States continues as a free and independent nation.
 
I am deeply committed to electing John Kerry. We cannot fall victim to equating our politicians with professional performers who use their personal charisma and charm to persuade us to use their product -- whether it's the evening news on television, a television show ("reality" or fiction), or a film.
 
We should crave substance, someone who, like Bill Clinton, is willing to figuratively roll up his sleeves and dip into the mire. Kerry has always fought for what he believes. Obviously a lot of people believe he can do that -- look at how people turned out in the Democratic caucuses and primaries specifically to ensure his nomination.
 
I am sure that President Bush sincerely thinks he is doing the right thing, and there is no question that he understands politics and is a smart politician. However, the chief executive cannot only be a smart politician. He or she also has to be an effective foreign policy leader, an economic and social leader, and committed to the American way of freedom and justice.
 
President Bush is a maverick. That may work well in Texas, a unique state that takes pride in its singular state (after all, it's the only state that tried to secede on its own), but that does not make it right for a country of fifty diverse states.
 
I prefer a man out of the tradition of one of the original colonies -- especially Massachussetts which has produced great leaders since the Adamses, a state whose constitution is the oldest and still working, in the U.S., which was a model for the U.S. Constitution. The people of Massachussetts take their citizenship and responsibility very seriously, and do not elect idiots to office. Neither should the people of the United States.

Bush is so wrong as president

Among my friends and family it is no secret that I think George W. Bush is a bad president. In three years he has managed to almost completely negate all the positive results of the Clinton administration, plunging the country back into debt, rolling back much-needed environmental protections, getting us into a war that has mired us in an impossible situation, and reintroducing Reaganomics. Which still doesn't work. (As an aside, I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who was working in an average, non-professional job, who was better off economically because of Ronald Reagan's economic plan.)
 
But fortunately I am not alone in my feelings. In a kind of "Let's pretend to be like those young people who run MoveOn.org" manner, the Bush/Cheney website gave devotees the opportunity to write their own campaign slogans. Unfortunately for their campaign, although to the great amusement of many, the site was dominated by Bush opposers. The campaign quickly shut down that fun game, but there is a website that retains all the delightful (although sometimes crude or mean-spirited) slogans. Check it out: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~meo232/sloganator/