Some belated thoughts on Dr. Tiller's murder

The murder of Dr. George Tiller has evoked a strong emotional response within me. First of all, I feel anger and outrage that anyone who is "pro-life" could murder in cold blood. I also feel such sorrow and sadness for this man's family, both biological and ecclesial. I cannot imagine the grief and trauma they could be experiencing now.

But I also feel wildly compelled to correct the malicious lies misinformation about late term terminations being propagated by the so-called "pro-lifers" who oppose such procedures, casting women who make such a "choice" as wanton harlots who cannot be burdened by a pesky little thing such as a living baby. But this is not truth. This is not reality. At least not the reality I know.

My reality involves holding the hands of grieving parents who have made agonizing decisions to terminated longed for pregnancies. My reality has been reaching into incubators and offered blessings/prayers/baptism to dying babies born with myriad fetal anomalies. My reality is comforting grieving husbands whose wives has just died due to complications from their pregnancies.

But my reality isn't what is being told. And my reality isn't what necessarily needs to be told. My reality is one step removed from the real stories of grief, anguish, and heartache.

Obviously, the protesters outside the Tiller's Kansas clinic have no idea the reality of the "choices" these patients make. How anyone can know the heartbreaking truth and still cast these women as sinners is beyond me. But then again, how anyone can call themselves "Christian" and "pro-life" and then murder a doctor in his church is also beyond me.

Remembering...

I wish we didn't have a reason for Memorial Day to exist. But, alas, it does.

We must not forget:

WAR DEAD

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003:

In Iraq
• 4,296 U.S. troops killed*
• 31,256 U.S. troops injured*
• 182 U.S. military suicides*
• 1,123 U.S. contractors killed
• 100,361 to 1.2 million civilians
killed***
• $670.7 billion cost of war

In Afganistan
• 685 U.S. troops killed*
• 2,828 U.S. troops injured*
• $188.2 billion cost of war

* through May 18, 2009; source: icasualties.org; some figures only updated monthly
** sources: icasualties.org, defenselink.mil
*** highest estimate; source: iraqbodycount.org; based on confirmed media reports; other groups calculate civilian deaths as high as 655,000 (Lancet survey, 2006) to 1.1 million (Opinion Research Business survey, 2008)

When will it end?

More on Torture

CNN reports that the more religious a person is, the more likely s/he supports torture:

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

As one who opposes the use of torture, I find this disturbing. Why are the religious faithful more willing to suport torture than the "godless, immoral heathens"? What does this say about religious faith? Is anyone else troubled by this?

Torture

In case you have missed the news all a-twitter around the blogosphere, Sean Hannity, conservative windbag (in my opinion) and advocate of torture, has volunteered to be waterboarded - for charity. Such an offer came about in this way...

Charles Grodin, political commentator and actor (The Great Muppet Caper), appeared on Hannity's Fox News show on Wednesday. After some teasing and banter, Grodin brought up the subject of torture, which Hannity supports.

Grodin: You're for torture.
Hannity: I am for enhanced interrogation.
Grodin: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?
Hannity: No, but Ollie North has.
Grodin: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?
Hannity: Sure.
Grodin: Are you busy on Sunday?
Hannity: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.

This exchange is disturbing to me on so many levels. I believe torture is wrong. I believe it's wrong to use torture as a means of protecting "national security" (I don't think it's effective and I feel it's a violation of basic human rights). And I believe torture is wrong if it's done for charity to raise money for a good cause. I feel that even suggesting willingly submitting oneself to waterboarding somehow reduces torture, the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering to punish or intimidate or coerce. To waterboard Sean Hannity for charity diminishes the severity this act of torture to the level of harmless prank, to reality television, and you know, this is not what torture is.

I am so disappointed with my fellow liberals, most of whom have advocated AGAINST torture, who seem to have jumped on the waterboarding Hannity bandwagon. "Woohoo! let's waterboard Hannity!! It's about time!!" And why do they want to waterboard Hannity? Because they don't agree with his politics? Because he's a jackass? The prisoners in Guantanamo have political opinions which differ from those of their torturers. And many of them are beyond the level of jackass and are downright nasty people. Why do we think "torturing" Hannity would be okay? Doesn't this undermine our very opposition to torture? I believe that we are finally getting close to having our nation acknowledge the criminality and evil of our recent acts, and I believe allowing Hannity to go through with this sanctions this type of behavior and feeds right into the line that it "really isn't torture anyway."

For a much more coherent discussion on this topic, check out:

http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2009/04/should-we-waterboard-sean-hannity.html

take me to your leader

I am now, officially, the chapter leader of Democrats Abroad Edmonton.

I have the two big binders of stuff to prove it.

tea parties

I wanted to post on the sheer stupidity and desperation of the tax protest "tea parties" around the US today, but first, I had to stop giggling at the ridiculous and seemingly oblivious moniker given to these "protests"; seriously, do they not know what "teabagging" is?

Then, my friend Scott, a brilliant ethicist in Chicago, said it so well my writing would just be redundant:

First of all, let's remember that the heart of protest in the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation." But the teabaggers are represented! In some cases, owing to the unrepresentative character of the U.S. Senate, they're overrepresented, given the size and population of their states. Far from being an undemocratic and non-consensual imposition on the U.S. people by a distant and disinterested foreign government, this is the legislation that their own elected legislators passed, and that their popularly elected president signed. This is is all the opposite of taxation without representation.

Second, although these protests are demonstrations of inchoate anger toward Barack Obama, it's worth noting that the current tax code, the one that people are out protesting today, has got nothing to do with Barack Obama, but is in fact the tax code as it was enacted under largely Republican congresses and signed over the past eight years by a Republican president. So to the degree that this is directed toward Obama and the Democrats, it misses it's desired mark.

Third, and more to the point, the Democratic Congress enacted, and Barack Obama has signed, the largest middle class tax cut in America history, of which most of the protesters today will be the beneficiaries. Far from protesting today, many of these people should be thanking the U.S. government.

Fourth, the complaints about deficits are inane. Under Bill Clinton, when the economy was booming, we actually had a chance to reduce and even eliminate the deficit. Under George Bush and a Republican Congress, the deficit exploded, along with thousands of bombs in an unjust and immoral war in Iraq, which contributed to the deficit. To the degree that Barack Obama and the Democrats are adding to that deficit, it is, and it is intended to be, a short term means of stimulating the economy in order to spark businesses to produce and thus employ workers, and banks to start lending again. In fact, for this purpose, the stimulus package was actually probably small, and so we ought to be spending more.

Finally, where were all of these people when Bush was running up those deficits?They were nowhere to be seen! So to complain now in a crisis, about deficits when they were silent for eight years when their own guy was in power,
is a prima fascia demonstration of their hypocrisy.

The only thing I would add to Scott's analysis is the assertion that these teabagging (hee hee)parties are hardly the grassroots uprising the media is making them out to be. Why won't people realize they are just being used?

political geeks

In case you are wondering just how dorky Craig and I can be, let me share with you this conversation we had this morning:

"Which do you want? Red or blue?" Craig asks, referring to the tops of the two pyrex containers holding leftovers to be taken for lunch?

"Guess," I answer.

He then proceeds to put the red into my lunch bag.

See, red is my very favorite color. In a manner, not unlike a nine-year-old, I surround myself with my favorite color. Red car. Red coat. Red cell phone. Red wallet. Red backpack. Red purse. Red. Red. Red. ad nauseum.

Craig's favorite color is blue. Though he doesn't feel the same passion for blue as I do for red.

This red/blue divide does not indicate any political divide within our relationship. In the States, we are both staunchly blue (with a tinge of green), so Craig's color "wins". Had we been living in the States, he might have muttered, "Republican" under his breath as he put made my lunch, just to get a rise out of me. However, in Canada, with the color divide inverted (here, we are so red, we're orange), he keeps silent as he hands me my lunch.

I can't resist though. As he takes his blue pyrex, I mumble, "Torie." He hears me, of course, and takes the bait, which then launches us into a debate as to weather it's better to be a "Liberal Republican" or a "Conservative Democrat". Is it better to be my former senator, Evan Bayh (whom I find to be a despicable, slimy, opportunist who doesn't hold values so much as a weather vain to determine which way the political wind is blowing), or to be Craig's former governor, Mitt Romney (whom Craig's sees as a despicable, slimy, opportunist who doesn't hold to values so much as a weather vain...).

At this point, my lunch made and a bus arriving in minutes, the conversation seems to end as we kiss goodbye. As I head out the door, I mutter, "Evan Bayh" once more. "Mitt Romney," he calls after me. Then, both repulsed by the insults we have hurled at each other, we apologize, kiss again, and I leave.

Blogs I Read

So RevGalBlogPals wants to know what blogs I read regularly. And I am supposed to limit it to only five. Yikes! I have over 30 subscriptions in my Google Reader alone.

So I'll start by saying that I read the blogs of many of my friends, check out their recipes and cute pictures of their babies. I read what's in their hearts and on their minds (and in Lisa's case, in her fridge). But I won't list those blogs among my five though these friends often do challenge me, inspire me, and make me laugh.

That said, these are the blogs (by people other than my friends) I regularly read:

Reason, Skepticism, Atheism:
As a person with a complicated relationship with organized religion (at times, I have hope and believe that religion can be a positive and healing force in our world and in the lives of individuals, but I have also seen how, too often, religion and faith can be so destructive to people, to communities, and to societies at large), I am drawn to writers who engage me on an intellectual level, challenge my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and force me to wrestle with my understandings of self and systems and the world. I am especially interested in the discussions around ethics and morality from a non-religious perspective. First of all, I think the dialogue around ethics gets much more interesting and complex when you move beyond "'Cause the Bible tells me so." Secondly, I am discovering that without a god to blame or a god to forgive, people are challenged to articulate and to live into their ethical values in more integrated and consistent ways. My favorite blogs skeptic/atheist blogs are Unreasonable Faith and Pharyngula.

News and Politics:
I am a political junkie. The US election is over, but still I check DailyKos everyday. Sometimes several times a day. And recently, in my desire to learn about the Canadian political scene (I do reside here in the Great White North) despite my inability to vote here, I have begun to read InformedVote. I may even start writing for them!!

Friends' Health:
I have several friends recovering from injury or illness. Last year, when working at the Children's Hospital, I discovered the CaringBridge website which allows families and patients to update their friends and loved ones about their status. It's a great service they provide, so I am happy to plug their site. I do check in on my friends Grant and Anna everyday.

Humour:
So I must confess my guilty pleasure: laughing at these photos of cats and dogs and silly captions (with horrible spelling and grammar). I was pleased to learn that I was not alone in this addiction to the adorable LOLcats.