Another example of how bad things have gotten

I promise to have a cheery Christmas post in the next few days, but I can't ignore the not-so-merry news my parents got today and its relevance to the detrimental state of the American workforce.

After a five-month battle with his former employer over a month's unemployment compensation, my dad got final word today from the state unemployment agency that he was terminated with just cause last August and is therefore not eligible for unemployment. The company, CMC Impact Metals, alleges that Dad attempted to lift an unbalanced load with a crane, which was supposedly his second serious offense in a week. So they fired him. My dad says that after 10 hours on night-turn without a lunch break, he engaged the crane in the wrong direction and promptly corrected it. Not only did Dad finish his shift without any mention of the incident by the boss who had earlier berated him for some minor infraction, but the next day -- the first day of his vacation -- he was called into the plant and fired without a single opportunity to speak on his own behalf.

I don't think anyone who reads this needs a description of my dad to know the kind of man and worker that he is. If this were a hypothetical story, we would be rolling with laughter at the idea of Ron Gianoglio getting fired from a job. I'd have been less surprised to hear the Pope got fired. But in a world in which workers are earning the same wages they made when Reagan was in office, and former union members are seen as dangerous threats in non-union shops, things like work ethic, courtesy, leadership, safety, integrity, and respect are not the qualities that determine an employee's value.

If that weren't bad enough, Dad was then denied unemployment and was forced to spend months organizing paperwork and documentation for an appeal hearing that was held via conference call. After that "hearing," Dad was confident that his testimony was far more convincing and conclusive than what was presented by the company's HR director, who hadn't even fulfilled all of her paperwork requirements prior to the hearing. In fact, he described his testimony as almost overwhelming compared to what the company rep had to say. But in a he-said-they-said case, the individual with no power, no advocate, no representation, and no money behind him can't even find assistance with the government agency that is supposed to help him. The word of a man with no other terminations on his 35-year employment record, otherwise excellent employee evaluations, and a new job at the time of the hearing is somehow still not good enough.

I shudder to think what this means for the other 99.9 percent of workers who don't share my Dad's impeccable standards but are still decent, hard-working people. What chance do they have of a fair shot in a country with an unemployment rate that is spiking so fast that the government will deny benefits to whoever it can in an effort to reduce the appearance of joblessness? Which is exactly what's going on. With companies and factories going under faster than the Titanic, the government is not about to add a worker to the rolls who lost his job due to even the merest perception of personal responsibility. And the only apt description for this state of affairs is pathetic. No one deserves this kind of treatment, least of all workers who quite literally can't afford to be political casualties. And more than anything, I wish my dad weren't one of the victims.

Worthy of a Standing Ovation

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

I know I've been AWOL lately, and I promise a quick return with all of my trademark brilliant and wonderful ideas and opinions -- just as soon as the semester is over!

In the meantime, please, entertain yourself with this work of genius from Hollywood.

Obama Must Sign Off

Text version of the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27740220/?GT1=43001


This just boggles my mind. I had no idea the president didn't have at least an inter-office e-mail address. Perhaps that makes me naive, but it honestly never occured to me that our country's leader will be unconnected to this degree in 2009. It's not hard to see why President Clinton wasn't sporting a hotmail account, since he was in office during the infancy and childhood of the Internet. But to look back on the past eight years and realize President Bush didn't even have a computer in the Oval Office is really unnerving. In some ways, I guess it makes sense considering the security risks, but there's still a part of me that shouts, "You have got to be kidding -- the leader of the free world isn't allowed to have e-mail!?" That's like telling Woodrow Wilson he couldn't use the telephone during WWI or that JFK wasn't allowed to address the public on television.

There's just something incredibly archaic about our country's leader not being able to use what most Americans consider basic tools for the efficient and successful operation of any office. Obama will effectively be confined to the same forms of communication that have been around for 20 presidents or more. And what's frightening is that the President -- who has the full weight of the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon, and everyone else you can think of -- can't be guaranteed secure electronic communication. What's that say for the rest of us?

America is dependent on electronic communication for everything from trading stocks to ordering lunch. I'm not suggesting Obama and Gen. Patreaus discuss exit strageties from Iraq in text messages, and I certainly don't want to discourage government transparency, but I really don't think it's enough to say this far ino the electronic era that he doesn't need electronic communication simply because everyone around him has it. Every piece of correspondence or information that isn't a hard copy should not have to be relayed through third party on its way to the Commander in Chief.

Also, the President is afforded a smigen of privacy: The White House residence area is off-limits to staff photographers and record keepers, personal letters are permitted, and almost all presidents kept a journal during their terms. I don't think it's asking too much to find a way for Obama to be able to send an electronic note to his wife asking what time she'll be done at the office.

But I also recognize that for every one technical, logistical, and privacy problem the information age poses for the general public, the government confronts 100, and there's certainly no one more deserving of protection from hackers than the president. But seriously, no e-mail? Even the Pope has it!

It's just unbelieveable that the country that brought us Google, Microsoft, YouTube, MySpace, online banking, eBay, and IMDB can't find a way to let the president communicate the format he and everyone else in this country has come to depend on. Is it really any wonder then that the country is in the shape it's in?

Right Versus Popular, Part II

This is the second in a two-part argument in support of same-sex marriage.

How is it that in the face of such progress there can remain so much bigotry?

The same day that we elected our first non-white president, signaling another milestone in the fight for racial equality that is as old as the country itself, we send a loud and clear message to another group of disenfranchised citizens that they do not deserve the same rights that the rest of the country’s citizen’s enjoy with abandon.

And yes, marriage is a right, not a privilege. A privilege is something enjoyed by a few above and beyond the rights of the majority, and it's also usually something that can be taken away. When was the last time a heterosexual person lost their right to marry? Anything that the vast majority of people are allowed to do without question or censure is a right. It doesn’t have to be specifically spelled out in the constitution to be considered something every citizen is entitled to.

A marriage is a union, a joining together of two parties. And it’s supposed to be something sacred, something held to the highest standard, and something that is supposedly so integral to our country’s welfare that if compromised by being extended to same-sex couples, it will rent the fabric of our very nation in two. I know this has been said ad nauseum, but it really does bear repeating: We allow just about ANY male and female couple get married, whether they are from two different religions, states, occupations, generations, races, social class, etc. A man and woman who’ve known each other for five minutes can get married. Two teen-agers can get married. People who have more marriages than toes can enter into that “sacred” institution time and time again. People who’ve committed adultery, rape, or even murder can get married. Yet somehow, the marriage of two men or two women is so threatening, so wrong, so damaging that people will dedicate months and even years of their lives trying to prevent it from happening.

Reasons abound – most of them religious – on why there is such vehement and sometimes violent opposition to same-sex marriage, but most of the justification is rooted in nothing more than personal aversion. There is only one, true reason people oppose same-sex marriage, and it’s the same reason people opposed women’s suffrage, integration, and abolition: It challenges their fundamental understanding of what they believe to be right. Americans have never before had to question their understanding of what constitutes a marriage or family, just as late-19^th-century men never had to question women’s role in politics. Women petitioning for the right to vote at the turn of the 20th century were spat on, taunted, called horrible names, hit, jeered, beaten, and even arrested. The anti-suffrage movement was every bit vocal and active as the so-called family values organizers are today. The only difference is the issue they oppose. Today’s protesters also refuse to see their opinions in the proper historical context, namely that they are just one more group of bigots trying to deny a marginalized group that which they are entitled to.

People can hide behind religious excuses until the end of time, but those reasons become less plausible as other biblical edicts go ignored. As a college student, I pointed out that people who break the Ten Commandments are not held to the same level of criticism and discrimination as gays and lesbians, and that other teaching of the Bible have been long overlooked because they have no place in the 21^st century. Rules about stoning virgins and female adulterers, rules about prohibiting divorce and remarriage, rules allowing polygamy and prostitution, rules about the treatment of slaves, rules against seeing one’s parents naked or allowing interracial marriage are outdated and irrelevant, so they are no longer enforced or even addressed. And the list goes on. This point has been belabored for years, but to no avail, because religion is only a smoke screen, and those who hide behind it aren’t interested in logic; they are only concerned with opposing homosexuality on any argument they can – plausible or not, consistent or not. Again, it’s that personal aversion to homosexuality, that challenge to one’s insistence on a "proper" – and narrow – order of things that is being hidden behind religious orthodoxy, and the result is some of the worst misuse of religion in American history.

If opposition to gay marriage is weak from a moral or religious standpoint, it’s blatantly unconscionable from a legal one. There is no legal or Constitutional justification for a nation that was founded on the individual pursuit of happiness to deny a segment of its population the right to enter into legal unions with the consenting adult of their choice. It is no different that telling black citizens that they can’t swim in the city pool or telling woman they can’t serve on juries or open up a line of credit in their own name. We live in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression and choice. To deny citizens their right to choose their spouse because others don’t agree with their choice is nothing less than discriminatory micromanaging of people’s lives. It’s the ultimate breech of authority, the likes of which we haven seen in decades. While some may find gay marriage morally questionable, personally repulsive, or even unnatural, the governing bodies that are sworn to uphold the rights of all citizens need to do what they’ve done in the past and legislate according to the precepts of the this country’s mission, not by the misplaced fear of a new generation of bigots.

Right versus Popular

This is the first in a two-part argument in support of same-sex marriage.

California’s Proposition 8 is the latest in a long line of setbacks for defenders of Civil Rights dating back to the 19^th century. In one day, voters repealed the marriage rights of millions of the state’s residents by declaring same-sex marriage unconstitutional – five months after those marriages began taking place. However, as history shows us, if left to popular opinion, there are many rights we take for granted today that never would have happened when they did. It was entirely because of so-called “liberal activist judges” of the time that segregation was ended in 1954, and because of one president’s actions that slavery came to a screeching halt in 1863 – two years after the Civil War began.

In the early 1950s, segregation was defended on the argument that there was no Constitutional right to racial integration. Had segregation gone to the voters in 1954 – as opposed to the courts – the measure very likely would not have passed. Even in the North, there was a shockingly minimal amount of support for integration. It took the objective and critical eye of those trained to explore and interpret the Constitution to determine that the separation of the races in public and educational facilities was wrong. And that decision was made amid popular opinion that was violently opposed to integration. It didn’t matter what the public prejudice dictated – those Supreme Court justices could find nothing in the Constitution to justify segregation, and so they had to act accordingly.

Women’s suffrage was opposed by many on the grounds that the Bible said, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord,” (Collosians 3:18). In addition, it was said suffrage went against the “natural and proper timidity and delicacy”of women[1] ; that such political activities were simply unnatural for the weaker sex; and that it would “weaken and break up and destroy the Christian family”[2]. After a 70-year battle, a Congressional vote to give women the right to vote failed in 1918, even after a direct appeal for its passage from President Wilson. It barely passed a year later, and the 19^th Amendment was ratified by the skin of its teeth, coming down to one vote in the last state, Tennessee, in 1920. By that time, there may have been enough support for it to have passed in a popular vote, but as a woman, I can’t say I’d have taken the odds. I’m glad those legislators – all men, I might add – were informed and educated enough to recognize that denying women the right t vote was a gross miscarriage of justice, regardless of what popular opinion said at the time.

Sixty years earlier, slavery was ended not because of the will of the people, but because one president stood up and said it was wrong and was going to end. Union soldiers in the Civil War were fighting Southern secession, not slavery, and while most abolitionists may have been from the North, most people from the North were not necessarily abolitionists. Once again, if left to the will of the people, slavery might have continued for several more decades. To suggest otherwise is to be tragically ignorant of the opinions and views of 19^th-century people.

And so that brings us to 2008 and my point that bigotry has governed popular opinion far longer than it’s governed the courts. Additionally, decisions much more important than our neighbors’ domestic status have been decided without consulting “the will of the people.” I know it’s a fine line I walk on this issue, especially because judges and legislators have the power to nationally reverse what little progress has been made toward same-sex marriage. Also, the legislature and courts have not always taken the path that hindsight suggests would have been the right course. Does invading Iraq ring a bell? Or how about the $700 billion bailout last month that has thus far produced no results? Or how about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2000 election that the contested Florida ballots need not be recounted? Or even Plessy V. Furguson in 1896, without which Brown V. Topeka BOE would not have been necessary in 1954. Furthermore, I don’t recall the general public being asked to vote on any of those issues.

History, both long and short, is littered with examples of poor governing. However, in cases of Civil Rights, the government is the only entity that ensured equal rights were extended to American citizens when the general public would have upheld laws and practices based on prejudice and discrimination. Popular opposition of something does not always make it the right decision, and 52 percent of people can be wrong. It is for that reason every effort must be made to convince legislators that their support of Proposition 8 and their general opposition to same-sex marriage is in direct defiance of their sworn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of its citizens. If previous legislators had acted similarly, I shudder to think of all the rights we take for granted that may have never come to pass.

---

[1] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “The Problem; Discrimination.” Race Class and Gender in the United States. Ed. Rothenberg, Paula S. Sixth Edition. New York: Worth, 2003.

[2] Brownson, Orestes A. “The Woman Question.” Rothenberg.

Yes we did!!!

After two of the closest, most contested presidential victories in U.S. history, it's such an amazing relief to know that Barack Obama won this election resoundingly, convincingly, and indisputably. Polls have offered close and cautious predictions for weeks, but I'm not sure anyone expected so many states that we had long thought to be permanently dyed red to suddenly turn blue: Virginia, Nevada, Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina. It speaks to the change Americans have been so desperate for, as well as our need to see a decisive -- and not divisive -- victory.

I know there are many people out there who are as upset as I am elated. There are people who are sickened and angry at this victory, whether for reasons of partisanship or race or simple cynicism. There are those who heard in Obama's statements of promise and change, the threat of mutiny on what they consider core American values. His invocation and inclusion of the diverse populations of this country -- the "young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled" -- is interpreted by many as blasphemy against the country's European origins. There are those who interpret his promise to help the majority as proof of the end of capitalism. And yes, there are those who believe the Americans most in need of Obama's help are the least deserving of it.

Obama's victory has brought such hope -- hope that our finances won't be annihilated by greedy investors and corporate billionaires; hope that social injustices will be further eliminated; hope that stability and prosperity are not the sole province of those with six-figure incomes; and hope that we all have both voice and choice in our lives, lifestyles, and individual pursuits of happiness, even among those who consider those choices wrong.

Watching John McCain's concession speech, I was struck by two things: 1.) If only his whole campaign had echoed the same grace, diplomacy, and optimism as its final moments, the result may have been different for him. And 2.) For a political party that prides itself on representing the most dignified, educated, wealthy, influential, and honorable people in American, the behavior of those gathered in Arizona was disheartening. On several occasions, McCain -- the hot-headed maverick himself -- had to quiet the boos of the crowd. I know they were disappointed that their candidate was not elected, but to blatantly ignore his lead of grace and admirable acknowledgment, I fear is proof of how deep the divide still runs in this country.

But if Barack Obama was able to unite voters in New York and Virginia, California and Iowa, and Oregon and Ohio, I'm convinced he'll go a long way toward reversing the chasm created by the tone and policy of the last eight years. Hope is a powerful motivator, and right now, the American public, for the first time in nearly a decade, has it in spades.

Halloween Disappointment

Taking a break from political issues, I would like to comment on our Halloween experience this year, which was the first that we took our 2 1/2-year-old-son trick-or-treating. We live in the inner city and have long known that there are a lot of people in our neighborhood who don't pass out candy. But until I had to traverse block after disappointing block of dark houses, lucky to see two or three porch lights on, I never realized exactly how many of my neighbors don't participate.

People have been complaining about trick-or-treating for decades, but in recent years, the number of participating houses, particularly in Youngstown, has plummeted. One of the most persistent complaints is that too many parents drive their kids from block to block in order to accumulate as much candy as possible in the two allotted hours. Many are upset that what was once a fun neighborhood activity in which people see the area kids dressed up and parents exchange familiar greetings has been reduced to a mad, greedy free-for-all for Snickers bars and Twizzlers. The other, and more insidious, complaint is that there are too many kids from "bad neighborhoods" getting dropped off by parents in "good neighborhoods." In Youngstown, the translation is that black children are "infiltrating" white neighborhoods in search of more and better candy, which in a city that is almost singularly defined by the effects of white flight, is the surest way to stop people from passing out candy.

Since ours was one of the few houses with porch lights on, we had round after round of eager, happy, costumed kids holding out bags and chirping "trick-or-treat." Yes, many were dropped off, and to those kids, we gave even more candy because we know they will be returning to neighborhoods with abandoned and fire-damaged houses, empty lots with overgrown weeds, and perhaps homes without heat beds, or even parents or responsible guardians. But still they were out there enjoying one of the hallmark activities of childhood, and I was not about to deny them that.

Fear has always governed Halloween activities. When I was young, everyone checked for razor blades and straight pins in candy bars. Apples, candy corn, and other loose items were immediately discarded because of potential poisoning. Even though no razor was ever found in any candy bar anywhere in the United States, the rumors and fears just seemed to grow worse over the years. Today, many neighborhoods schedule trick-or-treating from noon to 2 p.m. so that kids aren't roaming the streets after dark. Whether this is to protect the kids from kidnapping or homeowners from costumed burglars, I don't know. Even more places schedule indoor candy hunting so as to completely eliminate threats to and from the pubic at large.

The reality is that Halloween is still an overwhelmingly safe and benign event. We allow 10-year-olds to light fireworks in their own yards on the Fourth of July, but won't let them trick-or-treat because it's not safe. How does that make sense? We open our doors to men in uniforms bearing the names of utility and cable companies, but are afraid to hand out candy to kids dressed as Sponge Bob and Dora the Explorer. There is no logic to it.

I know that in my neighborhood, motives are almost purely racist, though few would ever admit it. And I could (at will at a later date) discuss at length the misguided reasons and consequences of their behavior, but for now, my purpose is only to highlight the illogical and inconsistent fears that have come to define Halloween. Most of all, I feel bad for my neighbors who didn't get to witness the excitement and creativity of kids dresed up as divas, cowboys, Storm Troopers, doctors, princesses, witches, dinosaurs, girraffes, and dozens of other characters, traversing neighborhood streets with the sole, child-like purpose of acquiring as much sugar as possible. It's nothing more and nothing les than what generations of kids have done before them. I only hope kids in the not-so-distant future are not denied this pastime by adults who've taken one too many urban legends to heart.

Fear tactics abound in GOP

The last three ads I've seen for Barack Obama have had the presidential candidate touting his health care plan, his tax cuts for the middle class, and his desire for education reform direclty to the American public, speaking about his past, he experience, and his plans for the future. Conversely, the last few McCain ads I've seen have had voiceovers that rival the those used in slasher movie previews, asking questions like: "What will happen if the economy gets worse?" or "Who do you want in chrage if terrorists strike again?" and "Is Barack Obama really prepared to battle al-Quaida?" One even shows a choppy ocean getting increasingly worse as a storm approaches, and the dire-sounding woman says something like, "Barack Obama says the economy will get better, but what if it doesn't? Who do you want at the helm if things get worse?" All that's missing is the music from Jaws.

Everything coming out the GOP camp could have been scripted by the grim reaper -- or better yet, by George W. Bush's campaign managers from 2004. For a candidate who's trying to seperate himself from the current president, John McCain sure is using a lot of Bush's tactics in these final days before Nov. 4. While Obama is promising hope, change, optimism, and improved living conditions, the McCain camp is drawing a worse-case scenario that is seemingly trying to recreate the fear that was considered a pivotal element in Bush's victory in 2004. But the problem is, it's 2008, and the biggest threats we face today are from financial monsters on Wall Street that were created and fed by Republican policies. People are afraid of the imminent threats of losing their homes or their jobs or their retirement funds. They're angry about canceling that summer vacation because the price of gas would have eaten up half the budget, and they're frustrated that they can't afford improvements on the home they have to keep living in because they have no hope of selling it.

According to MSN, home prices fell for the the 25th straignt month while foreclosures were up 17 percent over last year. Locally, in the last month, more than 200 steelworkers at Wheatland Tube in western Pennsylvania were laid off, which is only one case of dozens like it. These are people's fears come true, and Obama is offering solutions and reassurance while McCain is giving voters little more than prophesies of unnamed, unseen, unknown disasters. Ominous and unfounded what-ifs abound in McCain's rhetoric as he tries to play on the same sense of insecrity and vulnerablity that convinced Americans (and soccer moms specifically) to stay with an inept, unpopular president four years ago.

But fear is now an old tactic, and voters aren't falling for it anymore. We're sick of being scared, and we want someone to tell us things are going to get better, not frighten us with dire speculations that things will get worse. Comparing the approaches taken by the two candidates, it becomes very clear that McCain knows his policies aren't popular among the majority of Americans, and his only hope is repeating the strageties that barely worked four years ago. Too bad for him that we learned from that mistake and won't be repeating it this time around. We're voting for change, not fear!

Thank you Colin Powell

Thank you to Colin Powell for stating what very few people with comparable authority have said so directly, logically, and eloquently.

As part of his endorsement of Barack Obama, Powell drew attention to an unnerving element of the Republican Party's attack against the democratic candidate: its habit of fueling the rumors that Obama is or was Muslim. And the only response from anyone to that unfounded accusation has been the constant assurance that Obama has always been Christian, which while true and certainly worth establishing, does not address the larger issue. Thankfully, Colin Powell was not afraid to take the next step by asking, "What if he is (Muslim)? Is there something wrong with being Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America."

Unfortunately, for many people, there is something wrong with being not just being Muslim, but being of any non-Christian religion, and that is a segment of the population that we should be ashamed has the political and economic clout that it does. Furthermore, as Powell pointed out, the GOP -- which represents a full half of Americans -- is engaging in rhetoric and policy that is proudly narrowing the acceptable parameters of American citizenship. Powell stated without qualification that Obama is running a campaign of inclusiveness that speaks to Americans across racial, ethnic, generational, gender, geographic, and religious lines, while McCain and Palin (especially Palin) seem to imply with every statement they make that their "America" will be for the exclusive benefit of white, straight, wealthy, professional, Christian suburbanites. As I said before, Palin has yet to acknowledge the existence of women who aren't white, married, and toting a half-dozen kids to three dozen activities. The rest of us seem to be members of those pesky "special interest" groups, which ironically enough, now seem to comprise more people than the Republican-defined mainstream.

As Obama's lead in the polls reaches double digits, I think it's safe to say the American public is not buying the McCain-Palin pitch that only Hockey Moms and Joe Six-packs deserve to benefit from domestic policy. So thank you again Colin Powell for highlighting the reasons why even Republicans should be concerned about the exclusionary path the candidates for that party would steer the country down.

Faith's leap of logic

I recently read another article about the increasingly-popular Creation Museum, located just on the other side of the Kentucky border. In scale and appearance, the place looks impressive, and by all accounts gives a very thorough and detailed explanation of Biblical history, particularly the Book of Genesis. But there are a few points that really seem to require more willing suspension of disbelief that your average Looney Tunes cartoon -- and not only by atheists and agnostics, but also by millions of people who consider themselves at least somewhat religious, myself included.

However, there is a growing population of people who are ardent believers in Creationism to the point of completely ignoring and dismissing scientific fact. With that belief comes the contention that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years old unanimously accepted by those who have actually studied the planet. Now, that difference is not exactly what you'd call splitting hairs -- more like splitting mountain ranges. I can't even do the math on what percent 6,000 is of 4.5 billion, and my calculator doesn't have enough places past the decimal. So I guess my first question is how do you completely negate 4.5 billion years of history and blankly state it just didn't happen?

Imagine if a given religion was successful in convincing its followers that the past 500 years never happened and that North and South America had never been discovered. And to those of us who said, "But we've been living in North America for 500 years!" members of this religion simply replied, "No, we're not, it doesn't exist, and we know we're right because our bible does not mention any place called America." End of story, no arguments please.

How is that any different than Christians today baldly dismissing the existence of anything on this planet earlier than 4,000 B.C. and simply stating, with no qualification, that science is lying when it carbon dates pottery, bones, fossils, artwork, human remains, and so much else to centuries and millennia before 4,000 B.C. Talk about relativism!

Even more astounding than the belief that the Greeks, Babylonians, and Sumerians weren't palling around with Adam and Eve is the belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. The "theory" would be laughable if so many people didn't seriously believe it. That makes it dangerous. And this belief exists despite the complete absence of dinosaurs from the Bible. Now, one would think that had dinosaurs been here 6,000 years ago, there would be SOMETHING in the Bible about giant reptiles tromping all over the place! A psalm, a letter from Paul warning the Corinthians, a destroyed village, something, anything. But of course there isn't because they had been extinct for a few hundred million years and Biblical humans had no concept of the Earth's history, which is why they created a story that fit their limited understanding of life to answer their questions about its origins.

I think the worst part about this movement to make Creationism work in a time and place in which science has just about proven it impossible, is that it leaves out so many wonderful possibilities for people to blend "what was" with "what is." For all those who insist on recreating modern reality to fit the world-view of people who had neither the technology or experience know better, there are millions more who know that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Carelessly inventing facts on the modern side of the issue ignores the possibility that the creation story was meant to be interpreted and perhaps even revised through the centuries to account for humans' progress and intelligence. In what reality is it easier to believe dinosaurs existed 6,000 years ago than the possibility that Genesis was written for the limited world-view of Biblical humans, and perhaps even intended to be broadened to accommodate civilization's advancements?

The longer we allow this proud and unapologetic disregard for empirical fact to go unchallenged -- and therefore gain credibility -- the closer we get to establishing a relative theocracy whereby anyone can claim anything so long as they believe it and can convince others that it is Biblically based. I am far from being opposed to religion; however, it is critical that what we believe is adapted to accommodate that which we know -- not the other way around. Anything less places us in a position to disregard all fact in the name of belief with no accountability.

Societies that operated under a belief in their divine right to rule according to God's law have been among the most violent, restrictive, and corrupt societies in history. While the United States is not ruled by Christian dogma, the number of people who are so eagerly willing to cast aside fact for faith is a dangerous indication of how far they would be willing to go in the name of religion. I shudder to think of where such an unchecked crusade could take us.

Talking points on financial crisis

• Is it just me or does this $700 billion bailout plan sound a little too much like a bribe? It seems as if Washington is saying to this elusive mass of nameless, faceless investors, "Hey, we'll make you a deal: We'll put up the money, and you won't sell your stocks, okay?" Case in point: The Dow rebounded more than 900 points today, the greatest single-day gain in the history of the stock market. And the only reason given was the promise that all of wonderfully generous taxpayer money would be heading their way soon.

• According to research I've been doing online, only about 48 percent of the U.S. population owns stock, and that includes those with only marginal investments such as 401Ks and mutual funds. Additionally, only about 35 percent of the population has more than $5,000 invested, and a mere 20 percent of investors own 90 percent of stock. Just like wealth, that's a lot of economic power concentrated in the hands of relatively few investors, thus negating the perceived "freedom" of the market. Example: Twenty percent of the population just influenced the United States Congress to launch an unprecedented rescue mission with speed that the residents of New Orleans were told in 2005 was impossible. Something tells me that if residents of New Orleans owned 90 percent of the stock on Wall Street, Congress, FEMA, and President Bush himself would have swum the Gulf of Mexico to stop Katrina in its path.

• Most investors would probably say to me and the millions of other Americans who are skeptical and scornful of this bailout that we're not savvy enough in the ways of the market to appreciate how perilously close we came to economic disaster. I say to them, we live in a culture that criticizes women for being emotional, unstable, fickle, and volatile, yet we place our faith and financial security in an establishment that fluctuates regularly and wildly based on rumor, conjecture, prediction, and speculation. PMS is a walk in a park compared to the tension and anxiety on Wall Street every time a quarterly report or investor analysis is released. And now that a government bailout precedent has been set, what incentive do investors have to act wisely in the future? If anything, I think we can expect the behavior of the market to be even more erratic.

• For years, welfare has been criticized as the cause of everything from laziness to teen pregnancy. A program that accounts for less than 2 percent of the national budget comes under constant fire for being too generous and fostering feelings of entitlement and sloth. Yet in one fell swoop, we're handing over TWICE the welfare budget to people and companies whose net worth used to exceed some countries' GDP, and are hardly being given the time or opportunity to think or respond. It's the height of hypocrisy. People who can't afford their own home, health care, childcare, education, or even food and gas are made to feel almost inhuman for their reliance on the government for basic sustenance. Yet, Wall Street execs are not only accepting this federal money, they're telling the rest of us it's for our own good.

• Furthermore, AIG had the gall to continue with a $440,000 executive retreat after accepting an $85 million government loan to stay afloat. More than $23,000 was spent on spa treatments alone. I haven't heard of any heads rolling for that. Yet a bank will charge me a $36 NSF fee if I splurge on dinner at The Outback after depositing my paycheck because they decided to hold said check until the next business day.
  

The state of Denmark doesn't have anything on all that's rotten in the United States.

Just like who?

Ellen Goodman said it first -- and better -- but allow me the liberty of repeating it for those who might have missed her column a few weeks back: "Palin may yet be the fulfillment of an old feminist prophecy that Texan Sissy Farenthold once described with her tongue firmly planted in her cheek. We will have achieved equality the day mediocre women take their place beside mediocre men. Check that one off the to-do list."

Unfortunately, we seemed to have skipped over some more important matters on the agenda to get to that one. A few that come to mind include, oh I don't know, equal pay for equal work, better representation in Congress and on the Supreme Court, paid maternity leave, and a dozen other issues that offer concrete proof that we need women in power to understand that equality does not mean being treated like one of the boys. We need women who understand that their individual ability to have their children at work does not translate into every woman's ability to juggle work and family. We need women who value their children's right to quality education as much as their right to own a gun. We need women who recognize there are other kinds of mothers than the soccer/hockey variety, and that the problems and challenges these women face are not limited to domestic matters.

Sarah Palin does none of this. In her haste to relate to women, she never stopped to consider the variety of women out there. She has turned us all into modern-day Harriet Nelsons, juggling cell phones and practice schedules rather than vacuum cleaners and oven mitts. For the purpose of reconciling the Republican Party's "family values" platform with a society that is finally recognizing the power women have and are gaining, she has consistently equated "woman" with "mother," thereby further undermining the pitiful attempt the party has made to appear part of the 21st century. Her tactics are only slightly less outdated than the corset. Not once has she spoken to or of single women, single mothers, executive women, elderly women, college women, lesbians, Hispanic woman, urban women, Black women, widows, women in the military, or even how such categories overlap and intersect. Her tunnel vision is frightening. If she can't recognize the diversity of women in her own country, how will she ever handle international differences?

In case I haven't been clear on the issue, Sarah Palin scares the living daylights out of me. In addition to her exclusive focus on those of us with white husbands and children, how in the world does a woman who can't name one newspaper she reads, can't name one Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade, and has less formal education than I do make it onto a presidential ticket? Furthermore, in what reality does a vice-presidential candidate with negligible understanding of national issues and little concrete experience feel it's an asset to trade an image of professionalism and competence for one of parochial simplicity? With a wink and a smile, no less!

Have we really reached a point where we don't want the leaders of our country to be a little more prepared than the average hockey mom or dad? While formal education shouldn't be the only mark of a person's ability, do we really scorn education and intelligence so much that we can't even address the fact that it took her five years and four colleges to get a degree in journalism? And most importantly, haven't we learned over the past eight years exactly how dangerous it is to have someone in (or near) the White House who is not prepared to be there? We can't afford to make that mistake again.

Presidential Debate

I'd like to preface this entry by saying this page is still somewhat under construction. Those of you who know me know that I can agonize for hours over something as simple as a font selection. So when it comes to the design of a web page that will be the signature representation of my personality, politics, and priorities, just understand that it may very well be years before I consider it acceptable. In the meantime, I hope you can appreciate the truth of my blog's title as it applies to my perfectionism!



Well, what better current event to serve as a launch pad than the presidential debate? Tonight was the second installment. In the first 45 minutes or so, I was plagued by an unprecedented need to discard all of my early journalism training and simply hear yes and no questions get asked. The open-ended questions from the audience, which are typically any inquisitor's best tool, were pointless and vague to the point of practically inviting the candidates to set their own course. For example, one person asked, "I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?" Despite the "two-year" time element that was seemingly intended to pin the candidates down on an immediate answer, this question was nothing more than a prompt for them to discuss their positions on the environment.

Finally, the first concrete question I heard came from a woman who asked, "Selling health care coverage in America as a marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?" In other words, should health insurance be something sold on the open market by companies out to increase profits and which people are responsible for buying for themselves. That was a great question, which Tom Brokaw followed up brilliantly by asking very directly, "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" Unfortunately, neither candidate really stated whether they think it even is a commodity, let alone whether it should be one. At least Obama stated that health care is a right that presumably all people are entitled to, rather than the responsibility that McCain seems to think people must provide for themselves.

Of course, McCain covers his true motives with the veil of "choice." He says Americans deserve and are entitled to the "choice" of what health care to provide for themselves. However, this method requires that people be able to wade through what will inevitably be a dense and complex maze of plans and policies. For example, he said, "Of course it's OK to go across state lines (to find health care) because in Arizona they may offer a better plan that suits you best than it does here in Tennessee."

What I glean from that is not only am I going to have to know what's available in my own state but in 49 other states as well -- and then review and evaluate all those plans to find the one that best suits my needs. Gee, let me pencil in some time during my son's nap to hunt and peck for a health care plan that someone with a medical degree probably couldn't decipher. And while I'm at it, I'll make sound and informed "choices" about where to invest my retirement, learn mortgage and real estate law so that I can "choose" the best loan for my house, earn a B.S. in nutritional science so that I can make educated "choices" about the food that companies put on store shelves, and visit the 50 schools in Mahoning County to determine the one that will best serve my families unique and individual needs. Oh, and don't forget to go to work, make dinner and do the laundry.

I'm not suggesting people not be responsible for choices in their own lives, but ideally, organizations and government programs such as the FDA, FHA, Social Security, and dozens of others like them were designed to help people make decisions about subjects that require levels of expertise that the average person cannot be expected to possess about every life choice. Just think about the amount of time you spent evaluating what cell phone plan to go with, and then think about what it would take to make equally informed decisions about something as vital as health care, the stock market, energy, and yes, even nutrition. At some point, you have to be able to trust someone who knows more than you about that subject.

Amid the demands of everyday life, McCain's focus on individual "choice" is an expectation that is too high. Granted, it is classic Republican philosophy: rugged individualism and virtually nonexistent government. But that system only works for those who are experts in the given areas. We need a system that works in the best interest of those who don't have the time, education, or resources, to do it all. Gee, isn't that what a government "for the people" is supposed to do!

Welcome to my blog!

I sit down at my computer every night and read what other people are saying about our society. I read opinions that are thorough and well-supported, and others that are blatantly flawed and misdirected. Some writers create convincing arguments and showcase their mastery and appreciation of the English language, while others can barely string four words together in a coherent sentence. Some write about issues that speak of my experience, and some sketch images of a society that is as foreign to me as life on Mars.

But through it all, one thought reoccurs: I can do that! I love writing, and I love sharing my opinion -- sometimes whether my audience wants me to or not! So now I have joined the ranks of other writers from places as diverse in membership as MySpace to the New York Times, all with varying ideas of their own self-importance and inflated perceptions of their individual influence.

Though I harbor few illusions about how many people will actually read much of what I write, I am currently content to simply post my interpretations, rants, raves, soapbox posturings, preachings (to the choir or otherwise), beggings, politickings, discussions, and perhaps even the occasional genuine insight in whatever public manner I can. In short, this is at least as much for my person benefit and need for expression as anything else. I thank you for taking the time to check in once in a while, and especially for throwing your two cents toward what I have to say.