A Little Bit of Everything

Revisiting Morality

2008-01-07T21:14:00.000-05:00

This is my second post on this topic

(http://mmebrady.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-law-religion-and-morality.html)

I was prompted to post again by a Time Magazine article I stumbled upon:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html

"Morality may be a hard concept to grasp, but we acquire it fast. A preschooler will learn that it's not all right to eat in the classroom, because the teacher says it's not. If the rule is lifted and eating is approved, the child will happily comply. But if the same teacher says it's also O.K. to push another student off a chair, the child hesitates. "He'll respond, 'No, the teacher shouldn't say that,'" says psychologist Michael Schulman, co-author of Bringing Up a Moral Child. In both cases, somebody taught the child a rule, but the rule against pushing has a stickiness about it, one that resists coming unstuck even if someone in authority countenances it. That's the difference between a matter of morality and one of mere social convention, and Schulman and others believe kids feel it innately."

So with the teacher making a rule staing it is OK to push another student off a chair we have an example of "law" in conflict with morality -- a situation in which the Bible would have us put the law of God before the "law" of man.

Then there is the issue of morality being an innate concept. In my previous post I asked "So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong?" Psychologists interviewed for this article believe humans may have a moral code programmed from birth. I have long been interested in the nature v. nurture question, and find that idea fascinating -- not to mention the potential implications. If indeed there is a HUMAN moral code -- separate from religion, separate from law, separate from politics, what would this mean for issues like homosexuality? abortion?

Of course there is a distinction between this innate morality and behavior, or we would already live in a perfect world. Psychologist Marc Hauser discusses this in more detail:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880

I will add this book to my reading list!

Back to the Time article: "But you don't need a state to create a moral code. The group does it too." -- I would argue that groups can collectively agree to abandon a prescribed moral code as well -- so-called "mob mentality" The example that comes to mind for me is a boating accident that happened locally, where someone was killed by a boater who was intoxicated, and in the fracas, the "group" decided to leave the scene of the accident. Here are the bare bones details:

http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=44cf79e4-3494-4d1f-bc47-4cf5b81fc91d

Bottom line here, as Hauser puts forth, behavior will frequently exceed the boundaries of morality -- innate or otherwise.

Fascinating stuff...I welcome comments (as always, but particularly on this topic). I am sure this will not be my last posting on this topic....

Personal Safety in the Blogosphere

2008-01-07T07:20:00.000-05:00

Well, I had originally planned to post on last night's debate on Fox, but after I watched the analysis and checked this morning's news, most people seem to think Romney came out ahead, and that just leaves me speechless. Then again, after his insistence that he NEVER called McCain's policy amnesty (plainly not true) Saturday night, and his bold-faced lie about having supported Bush tax cuts from the beginning (he said he wouldn't publicly endorse something he didn't support) I guess I sort of tuned him out in disgust.

So here's the deal -- I'm rather new to the blogosphere. Sure, I've read blogs for a long time, but not with any regularity, and not as a participant. Now that I've begun my own blog and made my rounds posting comments where comments seem necessary, I have discovered that certain sites are like great black holes of negativity -- Digg.com for example. Yes, I have it listed as a link here, and yes I continue to visit and participate daily in one thread or another, but mostly because it truly amuses me to be "Dugg down" by people not bold enough to comment with a difference of opinion, or to be attacked and called names by people who don't like what I have to say. Now, I am definitely opinionated, but I like to think that I am a reasonable and thoughtful person who leaves room in my view of the universe for differing opinions when they are presented rationally and based on fact. this site seems to be sorely lacking in both rationality and fact.

There are others like me -- even on Digg. The question I have is why attack? If you truly believe -- especially if you believe passionately -- in your opinion, why not argue it rationally? I have even been known to CHANGE my opinion in the face of rational argument and facts I perhaps had not known before. But being attacked or called names only makes me feel more right -- I think that's probably human nature.

And it makes me want to keep putting my opinions out there even more. So bring on the healthy debate, and those who choose to attack, you aren't accomplishing much, except to make yourselves look foolish.

It's Nasty Time!

2008-01-06T09:54:00.000-05:00

After watching parts of the Republican debate and most of the Democratic debate on ABC last night, it was clear that the gloves are off. The Nasty Meter got quite a workout last night! The candidates primarily on the receiving end were Romney and Clinton.

As for Mitt Romney, I don't know whose idea it was to seat him between John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but he had to have been uncomfortable at the outset, and it surely didn't get any better as the debate continued. It was definitely not Romney's best showing -- arguing over semantics rather than actual issues, and arguing them dishonestly at that. Tonight's forum on Fox News should be very interesting. It may be Romney's last hope.

On the other hand, Huckabee did not make a strong showing either, compared to McCain, Giuliani, and perhaps even Thompson, who is not even campaigning in New Hampshire. Despite the poor showing in Iowa and the fact that he is also not predicted to do well in NH, I believe this debate further cements Giuliani's position as the Republican front-runner.

And Edwards and Obama formed an impromptu but logical alliance against Hillary Clinton, who, similar to Romney, did not handle the attacks particularly gracefully. This will hurt her as well. I truly believe she needs to be afraid of Obama. Edwards remains a non-entity, but Obama, for all his lack of experience, has managed to inspire the youth of America, and if he continues to gain momentum as he did in Iowa and last nights debate, the "Clinton Machine" may fall too far behind to ever catch him.

Time will tell, and I am anxiously awaiting tonight's debate!

Huckawho?

2008-01-05T12:46:00.000-05:00

This presidential election is one I have been following quite closely for months now. I have listened to pundits, watched debates, read blogs, in an attempt to choose a candidate from a pool that still seems to me to be rather shallow. I am a registered independent who is very likely to vote Republican. All along, the only candidate who has truly captured my interest thus far is Rudy Giuliani, because my greatest concern is national security. The Democrats seem to be seriously out of touch with this issue. Ron Paul seems to be siding with the Dems on this issue. Fred Thompson.....is great on Law and Order, but his heart doesn't seem to be in this campaign, and a President without heart is the last thing we need. Romney is too polished. I just can't bring myself to take him much more seriously than I would one of my daughters' Ken dolls. McCain, I used to really like -- even back when I was a registered Liberal -- but I don't like his position on immigration (which I see as directly linked to national security), I question his stand on waterboarding (something I think Romney addressed the best by refusing to answer in order to withhold information from our enemies), and he has just seemed too tired over the last year to handle the job. Then there's Mike Huckabee.

When I first saw Huckabee in a Republican debate, I didn't know much about him, but I immediately liked him. He seemed real. He seemed like Everyman. He seemed to have the pulse of America, and did not strike me as a traditional politician. Of late, his waffling had made me wonder if he is just not accustomed to the national stage, or is he more of a player than I originally thought. The ongoing conflict with Romney raised further questions. Then I saw Huckabee's campaign chair interviewed on Fox News. I found Ed Rollins to be an extraordinarily abrasive and unpleasant man -- the opposite of who I thought Mike Huckabee was. But Huckabee chose him as his top man. He must know who he has working for him. could I have Mike Huckabee completely wrong?. With his victory in Iowa, I decided to do some more focused research on Mr. Huckabee for myself, since the opinions of the pundits on who this man is and what his chances really are going forward are varied. Here's some of what I found:

Huckabee may be the "Republican Clinton" this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/22huckabee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

had a couple of very interesting quotes from people who knew him as Governor of Arkansas.

“He would go out and stump and do his shtick and tell his jokes and charm you,” said State Senator Jimmy Jeffress, a Democrat and critic of the former governor. “He has the gift of gab. He’s the only person I know, other than Bill Clinton, who can pick up a rock and give you a 10-minute talk on it.”

“Huckabee didn’t build bridges,” said State Senator Jim Argue Jr., a Democrat and leader in the schools overhaul effort. “If you didn’t agree with him, he attacked you.”

Granted, those quoted are both Democrats, but I find the direct comparison to Bill Clinton to be intriguing, and quite apt. It clearly illustrates what I first liked about Huckabee, but does not necessarily translate to sincerity. The second quote sounds to me frighteningly familiar to what Hillary's detractors say about her -- beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!

There are his liberal spending habits -- including a desire to provide government services to illegals -- documented from a decade as governor of Arkansas -- maybe less Republican than Clinton in the spending arena.

And there is his belief in redemption which has shown itself in clemencies granted, sometimes to violent felons. This stumbling block is of particular interest to me for how it may impact his dealings with terrorist entities.

As much as Mike Huckabee puts forth a likeable "nice-guy" image, is that enough? I don't think it is. I think he would be a dangerous choice for president, and at this point, my vote is still for Giuliani.

Being Christian in 2008

2008-01-04T06:09:00.001-05:00

I was inspired to write this post by a hateful comment I read on Digg.com:

"Huckabee is proof that the nutball Christians (which means all of them including the ones who lie to you and say they aren't) are at it again."

Now, I am not necessarily a Huckabee fan, but I am a Christian. I also do not consider myself to be a "nutball". I am a relative newcomer to reading blogs on Digg. One of my first comments was apparently given a "thumbs-down". Digg seems to be a rather liberal-leaning community populated by quite a number of intolerant people. I find this to be extremely ironic. Outwardly, the mark of liberalism would seem to be excessive tolerance -- anything goes. We are seemingly expected by the liberal community to suspend any moral judgment on any issue. And yet, here I find a comment such as this (and it is not an isolated comment). If the word "homosexuals" or "Muslims" had been substitued for "Christians", I believe there would have been never-ending cries of outrage (I'm sure my response to that comment will get it's share of outrage in any case). When did Christians become the group it is OK to disparage and discriminate against?

I find this attitude very dangerous -- and not just because I am Christian. I do not believe these individuals are violent -- à la the Skinheads -- however, as important as the SS was in actively rounding up, torturing, and killing the Jews in Nazi Germany, none of that would have been able to take place without the common attitude toward Jews that is hauntingly similar to what I read in that and other comments on Digg.

Let me be clear: I am not condemning Digg, I am not condemning liberals. What I condemn, is the vicious lashing out at those who believe differently. That is decidedly unAmerican.

So dugg2hard, whoever you are, try to keep an open mind, and show some tolerance for those who may not share your opinions and beliefs. We are Americans too, and more importantly just as human as you.

How to Vote in Primary/Caucus Season

2008-01-03T06:50:00.000-05:00

So here's my question: How should we be looking at our vote and its significance in Primary/Caucus season? The easy answer, is to vote for the candidate who best fits the needs of the nation from our point of view (see my New Years Resolutions post)

But I saw another angle as I was watching Hannity & Colmes on Fox News last night. Frank Luntz (who I love to watch!! His dials and focus groups fascinate me to no end!) was talking to Democrats about their voting choices, and many of them seemed very willing to NOT vote for the candidate they thought would be the best president, instead focusing on "electability" -- which candidate is best equipped to beat the Republican nominee -- whoever that should be.

At this point, my boyfriend who was watching with me began sounding off about that not being a valid way to choose a candidate -- "electability" that is. And then the question began to knock around my brain....and I don't have an answer. (As many opinions as I have, that seems to be becoming a theme on this blog -- my lack of answers...)

I am a registered Independent, so I would not be voting in a Caucus or Primary in any case, but if I were, how would I approach it? In my particular case, since at this point, I would probably be voting for Giuliani based on both electability and who I believe to be the best candidate (at least among those actually running). So this is really a moot point for me personally, but it intrigues me nonetheless.

So in the event that this blog actually gains some sort of readership ( I am still hopeful), I think I shall put this to a poll.

What do you think?

Our Rights v. the Rights of our Children

2008-01-02T09:51:00.000-05:00

A new law took effect in California yesterday, making it illegal to smoke tobacco in a car where a minor is present.

http://www.topix.com/us/2008/01/california-smoke-free-cars-with-minors-law-goes-into-effect#lastPost

Now as far as what goes on in California, my opinions are usually 100% contrary, but this is one of the few things that I support. Some will surely say (as I have read in comments on other blogs) that this law is "fascist" that the government is taking away "our rights", but what about the rights of our children? We have laws requiring us to educate our children. We have laws against abusing our children both emotionally and physically. How is it not abusive ot expose your child to secondhand smoke in an enclosed space? Study after study shows that secondhand smoke can have dire consequences for those who breathe it.

Check out this fact sheet from the American Lung Association:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857

Is the right to subject our children to something clearly hazardous to their health a right worth fighting for? I think not.

There are those who will say that this law is merely another step on the way to outlawing tobacco outright. I don't think this law is about outlawing tobacco, but about protecting children. It is true that with this and other recent legislation it has become more and more difficult for a smoker to indulge at work or in public locations, but from my perspective this legislation is more about protecting the rights of nonsmokers than taking away smokers' rights.

It is true that I am not a smoker, which perhaps makes it difficult for a smoker to take my opinions seriously, but as a nonsmoker I have the right to breathe clean air just as much as a smoker has the right to pollute his or her lungs. Should there be certain public places where smokers can smoke and nonsmokers can choose to avoid? Absolutely. But children don't have the choice to get out of a car where someone is smoking. Children are at the mercy of the adults responsible for them at any given time. So their rights need to be protected, and when adults lack the common sense to keep their children safe, sometimes legislation is necessary.

New Year's Resolutions

2007-12-31T10:01:00.001-05:00

I think most of us at least think about making resolutions at this time each year. Some follow through and make resolutions. Some even keep their resolutions. Me, I get to the making resolutions part, but 12 months is a really long time! This year, however I'm determined. I have two:

1. eat healthier (again) Hopefully I have more luck at it this time around.

2. Keep up with this blog. So far so good. I still keep hoping for more readers, but I haven't gotten discouraged yet. Patience....

I came across this posting which has some tips on being more successful in keeping your resolutions:

http://lifelessonsmilitarywife.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-years-resolutions-in-reality.html

What I have found in my own life, is that I have made a crucial change over the past couple of years. It was not related to a resolution, per se, but it has been a very important and positive change. I slowly pulled my head out of the sand and began paying a lot more attention to what is going on in the world. I guess this blog is the next logical step.

So I chose this topic for this post to ask all who read it to consider resolving a few things in this important election year.

1. Keep watching, listening to, and reading the news. Pay attention to what the candidates are saying, and pay attention to what media outlets are saying about the candidates. Be informed!

2. Keep in mind that media is NOT objective. Take everything with a grain of salt. Follow media on BOTH sides of the political playing field, and form your own opinions. Be an independent and critical thinker!

3. Make an active decision what issues are most important to YOU in this election -- give it some thought, and make sure you know the positions of the candidates.

4. VOTE! But cast an informed vote. Whatever your political leanings, the only "wasted" vote is one that has been cast thoughtlessly.

Our nation is at a critical point. The world is in great turmoil. I am not advocating any one candidate or party. I am urging you to sort through the oft-biased sound bytes and campaign ad propaganda to find out what the candidates are really about, what is important to you, and do your duty as an American citizen.

Should English be the National Language

2007-12-30T13:42:00.000-05:00

As a foreign language teacher, I am very much in favor of all Americans learning a second or even a third language -- in a global economy it just makes sense. When doing business with other nations, it is crucial to speak their language. HOWEVER, for that same reason, it is crucial that we expect immigrants to the US to learn English before being granted citizenship. The issue of language is such a volatile issue, because language is part of our national identity. It is part of who we are as a people.

And yet, it seems another issue that opponents of a national language seem to want to make a moral issue and/or an issue of race. It is nothing of the sort. It is

-- a method of identifying our culture
-- a way of facilitating communication
-- a way of unifying the American people

This is not to say that bilingual Americans need to abandon the other language(s) they speak. On the contrary, multilingualism is a practical, and dare I say essential skill for 21st century Americans.

The following links to an article on the positions of some of the presidential candidates on the issue of bilingual education.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28720

If these pathetic sound bytes are the best our candidates can come up with, then I am very disappointed. Not surprised, but disappointed. What does surprise me, is that of the underdeveloped positions presented, I am most in line with Clinton and Obama on this issue (stop the presses!) Romney's position clearly demonstrates that he is clueless on education. If we are talking about American citizens who have the right to a free public education, immersing a child who does not speak English in content area classes (math, science, history etc.) and expecting them to learn something other than deep frustration and resentment is unrealistic at best, and cruel at worst. Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson's "positions" are no better, as they imply continuing to enable non-English speakers to avoid learning English. The key words in Clinton's and Obama's positions are "while learning English at the same time" (Clinton) and"transitional" (Obama). These imply that supports will be in place for students while they are striving to achieve the goals of learning content as well as learning English. Practical and humane.

On Law, Religion, and Morality

2007-12-29T21:27:00.000-05:00

I found this quote at

http://www.thomaspaineblog.org

“There are many things which in themselves are neither morally good nor bad, but they are productive of consequences, which are strongly marked with one or other of these characters.”
-Thomas Paine

I thought it very clearly stated something I've been grappling with but haven't quite been able to put my finger on -- a concept that has been a theme in some of my posts. Those of us who believe in some form of organized religion have a code of morality laid out for us. Religion and morality are inextricably intertwined. But how about those who are atheist or agnostic? Surely these people are not amoral. So morality is not the sole territory of religion.

So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong? The laws of the land provide us with clear guidelines about what is and is not legal...what behaviors will and won't be punished. There is clearly some overlap between law and morality, but unlike with religion, issues of law are not always issues of morality. For example, if I exceed the speed limit in my car, I do not feel the need to repent. However, sooner or later it is likely that some kind police officer will point out the error of my ways, and impose a consequence.

Further, for those of us who are Christian, our religion dictates that we follow the laws of the land, insofar as they are compatible with the laws of God. But we must put the law of God before the law of man -- creating quite the dilemma in circumstances where the laws of God and man are in conflict.

hmmm........

So let's apply this to an issue I have put forth:

Drugs -- illegal, (although medical uses of marijuana remain in a grey area); to my knowledge, religion does not speak directly to the issue of drug use; moral or immoral? the demonization of drug use that I have spoken of leaves one with the impression that there is a question of morality here, but I think Mr. Paine's words are appropriate -- drug use in and of itself is neither morally good nor bad, but use outside a doctor's care is a violation of law, and therein lies the moral issue. Given that, I reiterate my position that medical use of marijuana SHOULD be a legal option, provided continued study supports its benefits, and government sponsored needle exchange programs are also within the boundaries of morality.

Marijuana -- Time to Admit It's not All Bad

2007-12-29T10:22:00.000-05:00

Ok, so here's the headline:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318526,00.html

Let me start by saying that I'm speaking as someone who has never taken an illegal drug. Never, not once, not only did I not inhale, but I've never even had the stuff near me.

I do not understand the resistance to the concept of Medical Marijuana. Street drugs -- bad. Illegal drugs -- bad. Abuse/misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals -- bad. But prescription of a chemical substance that can relieve some of the side effects of chemotherapy, or even inhibit the growth of some tumors -- NOT BAD.

I wrote in a previous post about the "demonization" of illegal drugs as it relates to Needle Exchange programs. With that issue, I can at least see the point of the other side. There is the potential downside of enabling drug addicts -- although I still believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. This manifestation of the demonization of illegal drugs, however, mystifies me. We are talking about, people coping with a potentally fatal disease finding some relief from their pain, and perhaps some hope for longer term survival. How is this a bad thing? Morphine, commonly given in hospitals for pain management, is highly addictive. Who is speaking out against morphine? Oxycodone abuse has become an issue in recent years, but it is still prescribed regularly. How about human growth hormone? Major League Baseball will never be the same again. But it is legal to be prescribed in specific situations. So why not marijuana?

It seems to be another example of misguided morality imposing itself where it does not belong. If it can help people, then USE IT. By all means regulate it, but USE IT.

Still not convinced? Check out what the AMA has to say:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html

How Far is Too Far?

2007-12-28T13:40:00.000-05:00

This story caught my eye after reading about it here:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016463.php

I commented on the post, naively assuming that most other people would read the situation as I did -- a clear case of police entrapment. Not so! I was surprised at the number of comments from people who felt that this off-duty firefighter got what he deserved -- that he was basically a closet pervert who needed the right opportunity to show his true colors. A quick bit of research turned up cases in NYC where "Operation Lucky Bag" results in numerous arrests of people who find "abandoned" property in a subway station, and are caught "stealing" the items.

The legal definition of entrapment involves action by agents of law enforcement inducing a citizen to commit a crime s/he would otherwise not have committed. So looking at the two above examples, would this 42 year old firefighter have exposed himself in public if he had not been 1. faced with a semidressed woman 2. given physical signals (rubbing her foot on his shoulder) that the woman desired intimacy and 3. asked specifically by her to expose himself? It seems obvious to me that this was not a guy who strolled the park in search of opportunities to display his package, even though he showed very poor judgment in the face of what he probably viewed as a rare opportunity.

The second example involved a number of individuals who are probably average citizens like you or I. So ask yourself the question: what would you do with a bag YOU found abandoned in a NYC subway station that contained an X-Box, or a Wii, or a cell phone, or some cash? If there was no identification, how many of us would just take the "finders keepers" attitude? I'd like to think I would turn the property in, but I would never have imagined being arrested for NOT turning it in. And what good, exactly, is the NYPD doing with this sting operation? Is it reasonable to assume that items turned in to the authorities will be returned to their rightful owners? You be the judge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/nyregion/14lost.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

We are living in a world that is in turmoil. Although many Americans seem to have forgotten about the great losses of 9/11, we are still in danger of being attacked by terrorists. Yet we live in a nation where many continue to criticize the Patriot Act -- an act of Congress put in place to better protect our nation in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and given the turmoil that exists in the world. So many Americans are concerned about the potential of the federal government "taking away" our civil liberties, that they seem oblivious to what is happening more and more often at the local level. If it is our rights we are concerned with, which of these is most likely to affect us as individuals, local sting operations or the Patriot Act? Which is more likely to have a direct and positive impact on the greater good?

Needle Exchange: Good or Evil?

2007-12-27T10:03:00.000-05:00

Drug addicts in Washington DC will be allowed to exchange dirty needles for clean ones after a 9 year ban has been lifted. DC has the highest rate of AIDS of any major city in the nation -- significantly higher than the national average. So will needle exchange solve this problem? Statistics show that needle exchanges do have a positive impact in reducing the rate of AIDS in hypodermic drug users. But the question becomes, does that positive impact outweigh the possibility that these programs send the message that drug use is OK. Once again, a practical issue becomes mired in morality. Don't get me wrong -- I believe strongly that morality has its place, and that government does indeed bear some responsibility in this area. But "The War on Drugs" has demonized drug use to the point where practical solutions -- again looking at the greater good -- are criticized based on an overinflated sense of morality imposed on a legal/medical issue. Yes, drug use is illegal, and breaking the law is morally wrong, I get it. But drug addiction is a disease, and this too must be considered. Obviously the ideal would be to eliminate drugs, take away the addiction, and clean things up that way. But the war on drugs isn't going all that well -- DC being a perfect example of our country's failure in this area. Practically speaking, I believe that needle exchange programs serve the greater good. Further, I do not believe that the promise of free, clean needles will lure unsuspecting children into first time drug use. It is a less than perfect solution, but it is a step toward a solution nonetheless. Perhaps we can be more successful in the war on AIDS than we have been in the war on drugs.

Securing our Borders -- a No Brainer

2007-12-27T07:32:00.000-05:00

Securing our borders....sounds like a simple enough concept, and yet it has been politicized and complicated by issues of race to the point where little or nothing is being done. Since when has creating boundaries become a moral issue? Before I go to bed each night I secure my borders by locking my doors. I am surely not alone in this ritual. If I were to come home to find a stranger parked at my kitchen table enjoying a ham sandwich and a glass of milk he had put together from the contents of my refrigerator, what would I do? I would call the police to remove him from my home -- without a second thought. If this man happened to be a different color than I am, would that make me racist? I think not, but let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say I forgot to lock my front door. It's a young woman with two small children sitting at the table. Before making themselves something to eat, they cleaned my daughters' bedroom (a job no one in this house seems to want to do). The woman leaves a five dollar bill on the table to help cover household expenses. Am I now obligated to allow this family to stay in my home? Am I somehow out of line to have them removed because I forgot to lock the door, or because they are doing a job "no one else wants to do", or because the woman contributed to expenses?
I can't imagine anyone finding fault with that. And yet, these are the arguments i keep hearing against the concept of border security. True, a nation is very different than a single family, but are there functions not very similar? As a parent, I am expected to provide for my children and keep them safe from harm, in part by securing the borders of my home. As citizens, we expect our government to keep us safe from harm, and securing our national borders is no less essential to that task. People who have entered my home illegally do not have the right to that expectation in my home any more than people who have entered our great country illegally have the right to that expectation here -- at the expense of our government, at the expense of our citizens. Even if we left the door unlocked. Even if they "do the jobs Americans won't do". Even if they are paying taxes.

My Blogging Debut

2007-12-26T16:12:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hannukah, Joyous Kwanzaa and Jolly Yule, Happy Holidays to all (in case I missed anyone).
Blogging is something I've thought about in a general way for quite awhile. As someone who always has something to say (whether anyone wants to listen or not), I decided to take the plunge -- call it an early New Year's resolution. So the first question is what to blog about? I titled my blog "A Little Bit of Everything", because I tend to follow current events, sports, politics, etc. rather closely, and I most always have an opinion -- sometimes a very passionate one. It seemed a good place to start, and I guess we'll see where it leads me.
So, the issue which has been on my mind of late is one that is particularly sad and disturbing to me in light of the holiday season -- the sad fate of Nataline Sarkisyan -- a 17 year old girl whose sole crimes against humanity seemed to be having leukemia and wanting to live to see adulthood. Yet seemingly through the fault of many, she was allowed to die because it was deemed too costly to allow her to live. As a talk radio and internet news junkie, I have heard a variety of opinions on this tragic situation, and I have heard blame placed in a number of places: Cigna -- the insurance company that originally denied coverage of a procedure they deemed experimental; UCLA medical center -- the hospital providing care to the girl who chose not to perform the transplant without confirmation of insurance coverage; surgeons -- who did not perform the transplant without the hospital's support and consent;and even the girl's parents -- for not somehow finding the money on their own to pay for this procedure which they viewed as life-saving.
In my humble opinion, the heart of the issue is larger than one team of surgeons, one medical center, or even one insurance company, because let's face it -- not many of us would have been surprised to read the name of any of a number of different companies in that headline. The issue -- as the Democratic presidential candidates continue to remind us -- is a healthcare system desperately in need of repair. And yet, although I realize it is the holiday season, as much as I have heard said about this story I have been unable to find any comments made by any presidential candidate other than John Edwards (who uses the tragedy as a further rationale for his plan to take the power away from the insurance companies. This is probably one of the very few things I agree with John Edwards about -- the insurance companies have far too much power -- over the lives of individual Americans, and with their political contributions and lobbyists, over the legislative process. But is "universal healthcare" going to solve this problem? Apparently, Ms. Sarkisyan would have been better off had she not had health insurance at all -- in the past, UCLA has performed transplants on uninsured patients. So it would seem that mandating health insurance for all (Hillary Clinton) would not be ideal in some cases.
What this story plays on -- as do some of the candidates with their arguments for universal healthcare -- is our own individual desire to protect our loved ones. When looking at this story through the lens of my own family -- what if Nataline Sarkisyan had been one of my daughters? -- I feel genuine outrage at the seemingly needless death of this young girl. I am furious that insurance executives are making life and death decisions instead of medical professionals. I am incensed that a hospital allowed a patient to die, when they had the power to save her, but the funding was uncertain. There are undoubtedly the makings of a great Lifetime movie here! But the other lens we need to remember, is that of the greater good. What would the far-reaching implications for the hospital have beed if they had performed this procedure without clearance from Cigna? If insurance companies were to routinely cover "experimental" procedures (and I freely admit that the word "experimental" is still in question as of yet in this case) that are now routinely denied under most policies, what would that do to premiums? If forced to choose a more expensive policy that would cover these procedures, what would most Americans choose for their families? What could most families afford to choose? Although it is easy to place blame when a child dies, the miracle of modern medicine has elevated our expectations to a perhaps unsustainable level. Medical care is expensive. Someone has to pay, but who, and how much? Who is responsible to make these decisions? To what are we as Americans entitled to when it comes to our well-being, and the well-being of our families? I don't have the answers, but I haven't heard a politician yet who I believe has the answers either. What I hope we can take away from this tragedy, from the sad death of this young American, is the courage to ask these questions to those we expect to lead us into the future, and to demand as answers more than a sound byte that will gain points in the next poll.
My "little bit of something" for the day--
Tracy Brady