Winter is finally over; many schools are in the middle of spring break, including the one where I teach. And the weather has been, well, March-like. It gets warm, then cold. The sun shines, then it rains.
Springtime brings the rebirth of grass and flowers. But it also marks the return of severe weather season in Indiana. I’ve already heard a few rumbles of thunder this year.
Weather fascinated me when I was younger. For much of my childhood, I remember being very apprehensive about the weather. Most kids ignored it completely, unless it interferes with their outdoor play schedule.
But I remember being terrified of storms. I also really hated the wind, even if it was blowing on a clear day. If the wind was blowing strong enough to make the leaves rustle, it was blowing too hard for me.
It seems silly, looking back on it. But, although I became less concerned about the summer breeze, I still retained my anxiety about storms well into adulthood.
It probably stemmed from the fact that my aunt, who cared for my siblings and me while my parents worked, had a phobia about storms herself. We had quite a ritual every time it thundered, piling up on the bed because it was supposed to protect us from lightning somehow.
Anyway, with storm season at hand, I find that I’m not nearly as apprehensive about this time of year as I used to be. But I still don’t like wind storms. Lightning doesn’t bother me much, because I know I’m safe from it as long as I remain indoors, or in a car.
Wind is still the main threat from storms. Wind can blow your house down, or blow a tree onto it. Simply being inside does not protect you from strong winds.
My early fear of tornadoes and severe storms caused me to consider ways to avoid them. I knew all the safety rules, but the only sure way to avoid them was to move to a place where they did not occur.
There are many states which have a lower occurrence of tornadoes than Indiana, but they still happen. To escape them, I would have to move to the west coast. Even the west coast doesn't escape tornadoes completely, but they are very rare there.
Of course, if I moved to the West, I could rest easier about tornadoes, but I would have to start worrying about earthquakes. And earthquakes have no season, so I'd need to be on my toes all year.
I started thinking where in the entire country I could move and not have to worry about natural disaster striking. The Midwest and South have tornadoes; the West has earthquakes and the east coast has hurricanes. Is there a place I could go to escape?
Probably the safest region to go would be somewhere around Wyoming or Montana. They have a slight predisposition to earthquakes, but then, so does Indiana. They are more prone to droughts, with hot, dry temperatures in the summer.
After concluding that there really is no truly safe place to go, I concluded that Indiana wasn’t such a bad place. It is moderate in almost everything, including its risk of tornadoes. It doesn’t get as hot as the Great Plains or the South. It doesn’t get as cold as the upper Midwest or New England. And it never gets hit by a hurricane.
So, it looks like I’m staying put for awhile.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Congress Subpoenas Vegetative Woman
If it were not true, and so serious, it could by funny.
Imagine a scenario where the U.S. Congress, under the control of a religious right-wing majority, takes time from its busy schedule to interfere with what is rightfully a family matter by issuing a subpoena to a woman who has been little more than a vegetable for fifteen years.
Congressional subpoenas are ordinarily issued to those whom Congress needs to testify before them. I wonder if they will try to quiz the vegetative woman, Terri Schiavo. And since she’s in a vegetative state and, therefore, can’t respond, will they find her in contempt of Congress or guilty of trying to foster a cover-up of some kind?
Schiavo has been in a vegetative state and on life support since 1990 when she suffered massive brain damage due to heart failure. It’s worse than a coma.
On Friday, the tubes were finally removed - for a third time. The first two times, her family fought to have them put back in.
Her husband wanted her feeding tubes removed so she can die in peace. He says she told him she wanted it that way if she were ever in this situation. But her parents want her to continue to vegetate, hoping one day she might wake up.
Get real folks, she’s been dead from the start. If there is an afterlife, she has been there for 15 years.
It never ceases to amaze me the kinds of dead-end avenues of faulty logic we Americans often take. I understand the parents’ wishes to have their daughter back. I don’t understand their logic in holding out that she might actually come back. Even if she did finally wake up, she would still have serious brain damage. She wouldn’t be her old self again.
And why are the laws so muddy on this matter. It seems rather black-and-white to me. If a person is vegetative, then the first priority should be given to the written wishes of that person. Schiavo didn’t leave any.
The next priority should be the spouse’s wishes. And, lacking a spouse, the wishes of the next of kin should take priority.
So, in the case of Terri Schiavo, the husband’s wishes should be carried out without any possibility of legal interference from the parents. Period.
And interference from Congress should not ever be part of the equation. It’s none of Congress’ business. More importantly, in this situation, Congress seems to have used its power of subpoena to attempt to place a de facto injunction on a state court’s ruling. How’s that for entanglement of the separate powers of government?
I’ve never understood why there is such a controversy over the right to life. To me, it seems easy. Maybe I’m just too naïve to understand all the complexities, but I don’t think so. I think it’s the religious right butting their collective noses into everyone’s business again.
If a terminally ill patient wants to take medicine to end the suffering, their doctors should have the right to comply with their dying wishes. Oregon is the only state that allows that to happen, and its law is under attack by, you guessed it, the religious right.
Doctor Kavorkian was right. He should be labeled as a pioneer in human rights, not as a criminal who violated some archaic morality law.
Euthanasia should be an accepted option in situations where patients are terminally ill and suffering or in a vegetative state with little or no chance of returning to normal.
I used to consider myself to be a moderate republican. I still am loathe to call myself a democrat. I have historically been in agreement with the foreign policy of republicans, and even some of their economic policies. I especially like it that they have not been so willing to cave in to pressure from minority groups.
But then there have always been those nagging religious factions who insist on drawing moral lines for the masses. They are republicans, too. And therein lies the problem.
Since George W. Bush has been president, the religious faction has had a loud and clear voice. And as the voice of that faction grows stronger, the rights of the rest of us will continue to be trampled, even those of us who are in a vegetative state and need to be allowed to die.
Imagine a scenario where the U.S. Congress, under the control of a religious right-wing majority, takes time from its busy schedule to interfere with what is rightfully a family matter by issuing a subpoena to a woman who has been little more than a vegetable for fifteen years.
Congressional subpoenas are ordinarily issued to those whom Congress needs to testify before them. I wonder if they will try to quiz the vegetative woman, Terri Schiavo. And since she’s in a vegetative state and, therefore, can’t respond, will they find her in contempt of Congress or guilty of trying to foster a cover-up of some kind?
Schiavo has been in a vegetative state and on life support since 1990 when she suffered massive brain damage due to heart failure. It’s worse than a coma.
On Friday, the tubes were finally removed - for a third time. The first two times, her family fought to have them put back in.
Her husband wanted her feeding tubes removed so she can die in peace. He says she told him she wanted it that way if she were ever in this situation. But her parents want her to continue to vegetate, hoping one day she might wake up.
Get real folks, she’s been dead from the start. If there is an afterlife, she has been there for 15 years.
It never ceases to amaze me the kinds of dead-end avenues of faulty logic we Americans often take. I understand the parents’ wishes to have their daughter back. I don’t understand their logic in holding out that she might actually come back. Even if she did finally wake up, she would still have serious brain damage. She wouldn’t be her old self again.
And why are the laws so muddy on this matter. It seems rather black-and-white to me. If a person is vegetative, then the first priority should be given to the written wishes of that person. Schiavo didn’t leave any.
The next priority should be the spouse’s wishes. And, lacking a spouse, the wishes of the next of kin should take priority.
So, in the case of Terri Schiavo, the husband’s wishes should be carried out without any possibility of legal interference from the parents. Period.
And interference from Congress should not ever be part of the equation. It’s none of Congress’ business. More importantly, in this situation, Congress seems to have used its power of subpoena to attempt to place a de facto injunction on a state court’s ruling. How’s that for entanglement of the separate powers of government?
I’ve never understood why there is such a controversy over the right to life. To me, it seems easy. Maybe I’m just too naïve to understand all the complexities, but I don’t think so. I think it’s the religious right butting their collective noses into everyone’s business again.
If a terminally ill patient wants to take medicine to end the suffering, their doctors should have the right to comply with their dying wishes. Oregon is the only state that allows that to happen, and its law is under attack by, you guessed it, the religious right.
Doctor Kavorkian was right. He should be labeled as a pioneer in human rights, not as a criminal who violated some archaic morality law.
Euthanasia should be an accepted option in situations where patients are terminally ill and suffering or in a vegetative state with little or no chance of returning to normal.
I used to consider myself to be a moderate republican. I still am loathe to call myself a democrat. I have historically been in agreement with the foreign policy of republicans, and even some of their economic policies. I especially like it that they have not been so willing to cave in to pressure from minority groups.
But then there have always been those nagging religious factions who insist on drawing moral lines for the masses. They are republicans, too. And therein lies the problem.
Since George W. Bush has been president, the religious faction has had a loud and clear voice. And as the voice of that faction grows stronger, the rights of the rest of us will continue to be trampled, even those of us who are in a vegetative state and need to be allowed to die.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Too Much Government Secrecy
In a democracy such as ours, it is often necessary to balance national security against the public’s right to know what its government is doing. But, being government, sometimes that balance is shifted too much toward secrecy.
A new poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs for Sunshine Week, a coalition of media organizations and other groups pressing for government access, shows that more than half of all Americans believe the government is not being open enough. Seven out of 10 people are concerned about too much government secrecy.
The feeling of most Americans is that, as a democracy, the government is theirs and they want to know what’s going on. Although most acknowledge the need for some secrecy when national security is dependent upon it, most also believe the government goes too far in keeping secrets from its citizens.
It does not serve the best interest of the country when the government pulls down the window shades and denies the public access to its records. Even under the Freedom of Information Act, the government can censor all or parts of documents that are ordered released by courts.
Take, as an example, the highly secret Area 51, a government-run facility in Nevada used to test new aircraft. It has existed since the 1940s, but it wasn’t until a lawsuit in the mid-1990s that the Pentagon even acknowledged its existence.
Everybody knew it was there. Many speculated it was a laboratory facility used to study extraterrestrials that had been captured by the Air Force. Others thought it might be a test facility. But the government always denied it even existed.
That’s an extreme example, but it is not a lone one. Anytime you have bureaucrats in power, things tend to get a little hushed.
Americans are generally not too happy with that, as the poll showed. The poll also showed:
Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said there is too little access to government records; 36 percent said access is "just about right," and six percent said there is too much access.
Fifty percent said access to court records is about right, while 33 percent said there is too little and eight percent said there is too much.
When it comes to government meetings and hearings, 48 percent said there is too little access, 42 percent said access is about right, and five percent said there is too much.
The percentages are similar to those produced by the same type of survey done in 2000. That is somewhat surprising since it was assumed that in a post-9/11 era, more people would be willing to put up with increased government secrecy. Apparently, that isn’t the case.
It’s not just the federal government that is too secretive, according to the poll. Even local government can hold things back. Across the country town councils and school boards make decisions in the back rooms or across the table in a restaurant, only meeting in public to make it official.
It remains up to the pubic, and to watchdog groups such as Ipsos, to pressure the government into keeping things more open. A government that operates in secret can’t remain democratic forever.
A new poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs for Sunshine Week, a coalition of media organizations and other groups pressing for government access, shows that more than half of all Americans believe the government is not being open enough. Seven out of 10 people are concerned about too much government secrecy.
The feeling of most Americans is that, as a democracy, the government is theirs and they want to know what’s going on. Although most acknowledge the need for some secrecy when national security is dependent upon it, most also believe the government goes too far in keeping secrets from its citizens.
It does not serve the best interest of the country when the government pulls down the window shades and denies the public access to its records. Even under the Freedom of Information Act, the government can censor all or parts of documents that are ordered released by courts.
Take, as an example, the highly secret Area 51, a government-run facility in Nevada used to test new aircraft. It has existed since the 1940s, but it wasn’t until a lawsuit in the mid-1990s that the Pentagon even acknowledged its existence.
Everybody knew it was there. Many speculated it was a laboratory facility used to study extraterrestrials that had been captured by the Air Force. Others thought it might be a test facility. But the government always denied it even existed.
That’s an extreme example, but it is not a lone one. Anytime you have bureaucrats in power, things tend to get a little hushed.
Americans are generally not too happy with that, as the poll showed. The poll also showed:
Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said there is too little access to government records; 36 percent said access is "just about right," and six percent said there is too much access.
Fifty percent said access to court records is about right, while 33 percent said there is too little and eight percent said there is too much.
When it comes to government meetings and hearings, 48 percent said there is too little access, 42 percent said access is about right, and five percent said there is too much.
The percentages are similar to those produced by the same type of survey done in 2000. That is somewhat surprising since it was assumed that in a post-9/11 era, more people would be willing to put up with increased government secrecy. Apparently, that isn’t the case.
It’s not just the federal government that is too secretive, according to the poll. Even local government can hold things back. Across the country town councils and school boards make decisions in the back rooms or across the table in a restaurant, only meeting in public to make it official.
It remains up to the pubic, and to watchdog groups such as Ipsos, to pressure the government into keeping things more open. A government that operates in secret can’t remain democratic forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)