Stem Cells...

And going back to yesterday's reference to Clockwork Orange. Yes... DEFINITELY... Bush should have to sit in a theater with his eyes taped open and see photo after photo (all 3500+) of our slain soldiers. And today I add to it that he should have to see photo after photo of our maimed soldiers - every missing hand, foot, leg, eye, ear. And while he watches, the book Johnny Got His Gun should be read over a loud speaker.

Those soldiers had lives. Each one of them had families - someone out there somewhere who gave a damn about whether s/he came home alive. Each one has someone mourning his or her death. Each one has someone whose life is forever changed because s/he will not be coming back from Iraq. THOSE are lives.

Cells in a petri dish ARE NOT LIVES. THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. THEY WILL NOT SPEAK, THINK, TALK, CARE, EAT OR BREATH. They are just cells. If not inserted into a womb and carried to term, the cells are nothing at all.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN? How can he have everything so completely wrong in his exceptionally limited mind? Soldiers in Iraq have lives that should not be thrown away. Cells in a dish have nothing - no consciousness, no life.

You know who does have those things? The soldiers who come back from Iraq without body parts. And perhaps with enough support for research and study, scientists could discover how to regrow body parts that could help them reclaim their lives.

And maybe scientists could help people, real thinking, living, talking, breathing, eating people with diabetes and Parkinson's.

President Bush - the whole country is against you... not just generally (though that is true), but specifically on this issue. You are wrong. Completely wrong. In every way wrong.

Put away your veto pen - you don't know how to use it properly. Your toys are all too dangerous and you shouldn't be allowed to use them.

Stem cell research should be supported with every resource we have available.

This just in...

So Bloomberg's an Independent.

Whose taking the odd's on a third party presidential bid? If it weren't for Barack, I might have to vote for him now... hmmmm.....

Actually - that's it! He's based in New York. I'll work in his campaign when he runs! That would be fun. I can't argue with the people who say he's done a good job - New York is a pretty decent place to live (even for someone like me who is NOT a city mouse). And he is, actually, a Democrat...

News Wrap-up

1. Images of war
So the military has imposed restrictions on photographers embedded with troops that require written permission to be granted from the solider before his image can be published. This stems from a case where a soldier's family found out about his injury from a photo in the New York Times. Certainly that's not ideal. And the military's argument is that a soldier has a right to privacy - if s/he doesn't want her/his family to know about an injury that should be the soldier's right. However, as the reporter describes it, this means that he would have to ask a solider who might have shrapnel in his face and broken or burned limbs to look at his images on a lap top and write a permission note for the use of the pictures. Doesn't sound too practical.

The military does allow the photos to be used if they don't identify the soldiers, but the reporter argued that the anonymity detracts from the impact of the image - a nameless soldier doesn't reach the public the way Corporal Smith from Tucson does.

I'm not passionately against the military's position to the extent that a soldier may not want his bloodied body on the front page of the Times and maybe he deserves that much dignity. However, I agree with the reporter that his ability to communicate the realities of war are severely hampered and that this seems suspiciously like another administration attempt to limit the public's exposure to the war - which is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.

More pictures, more stories, more "real" reality - that's what Americans need; Americans who are so trigger-happy but don't like to know the dirty, ugly, gruesome truth of their decisions. Show it all, I say. It's like when you shove a dog's face in its mess after it has gone in the house. Maybe that's what Americans (and politicians) need.

I'm imagining President Bush in a Clockwork Orange scene being shown the image of every soldier who has died - two images actually: one of the solider alive, laughing, with his family, and one dead in his coffin, or on the field. Make him know, really, know what he has done.

2. We don't want anyone to think it isn't going well... too late.
Apparently there are some members of Congress who object to allowing expedited immigration for Iraqis because a massive resettlement of Iraqis in the US might "give the impression things aren't getting better in Iraq - that stability is decreasing, rather than increasing."

I swear to God I think I'm living in a distopian novel. Orwell - Orwell, is that you??? Did you write this nightmare?

Guess what?? Appearance is not a good reason to keep people in a hell hole we created!!! I feel like this should be obvious, but for anyone out there who is unclear - it's not actually going well. Now can we let Iraqis who would prefer to live in peace into our country?

3. Isn't it interesting?
If I were still at RLM or better yet, if I worked for the Daily Show, right now I'd be putting together a montage of the things W considers interesting. From today: "It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy or a potential Palestinian democracy," Bush said."

I think it's interesting when democracies attack otherwise stable countries. I also think it's interesting that he doesn't tie the increase in these attacks to the destabilization of the region caused by his invasion. I also think it's interesting that we have to be afraid of a Cold War with Russia and civil wars ending millions of lives in Africa. And plane hijackings. And corporate excess. And people wearing neon. And then I woke up and it was 1982.

Seriously, I hope Jon Stewart does the montage because what Bush considers interesting is interesting.

4. She's a Man Eater.
I wonder why Man Eater didn't make HRC's short list of theme songs. Today Mrs. Clinton chose Canadian singer Celine Dion's hit "You and I" popularized by Air Canada. A catchy little tune, despite my abhorrence of Ms. Dion's work. ALL of it. Ms. Dion can't hold a candle to Fleetwood Mac and her husband's use of "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" (I'm sure he's thrilled not to have to listen to it any more), but it's probably better than him taking a scene from "My Best Friend's Wedding" and lending her his song.

Now this may or may not be apocryphal, but I remember being told once that W was planning to use "Best of Times" from La Cage Aux Folles as his theme song, until someone told him that it was from a show about two gay guys who save a conservative politician's arse. I hope it's true!!!

Rowland... Rowland - that name rings a bell

Oh ya, that's because he's the guy who managed to get elected Governor of the great state of Connecticut three times. And then he went to prison for corruption.

I can't possibly waste too much time recounting this man's various evil-doings, but I simply can't pass on the opportunity to comment on today's article in the Washington Post. In it, Rowland is quoted saying, "She (Rell) threw me under the bus when it got rough..." By "rough", does he mean when it became perfectly clear that he was going to be held accountable for his illegal activity? Is he serious???

Now I'm no big fan of Jodi Rell. I find it hard to believe that there is no one in Connecticut better suited to the job of governor than she. And though she claims to be unpolitical, even lackluster M.J. would have had to be extremely dull not to realize that Rowland's goose was cooked. And had the situation been reversed, Rowland would have thrown her to the wolves and played poker that night in his basement without giving it another thought.

Poor Mr. Rowland... it had to be tough seeing the sitting Lt. Governor stand by, uh, the law of the state, rather than, um, him.

And it makes it pretty clear, doesn't it, why he was a rising star in the Republican party? This emphasis on loyalty above competence, above law, above the people he governed? Had he just managed to stay out of prison a few more years, he could have been the next Attorney General.

I can't say I've missed J.R. But it was fun to hear from him today. But with my vast PR background, I'd have to counsel him to stay quiet a bit longer....

Catholic League - sigh...

I just read the ad in the New York Times placed by the Catholic League complaining that no one at ABC has apologized for the "offences" committed by Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar on that hard-hitting, intellectual achievement - The View. I'm not sure Barbara Walters' career will survive their attack.

Keeping this nice and polite, below is the feedback I provided to the Catholic League, though my true derision knows no bounds.

To the Catholic League:
Seriously, you make a mockery of yourself with such a silly advertisement in the New York Times.

I was raised Catholic, but I have utter respect for a country that allows a diversity of opinions to be expressed - it's called "Freedom of Speech."

Have some confidence that those who follow Catholic teachings are less likely to have their faith influenced by Rosie O'Donnell, than they are by their readings, their priests and their God.

Instead of wasting money expressing your dislike of a talk show, put that money toward spreading Catholic faith through good works - go help the homeless or comfort the sick. If you don't like what a celebrity has to say, just turn the channel.

I'm sincerely embarrassed for you. What a stupid PR decision.

HIllary, 2

In light of a comment I just received comparing a Hillary presidency to W, I must clarify my earlier post to say I am simply challenging HC to be better, more focused on what she is doing and why - being certain she is approaching this for the right reasons. There is NO universe in which a Clinton administration wouldn't be incomparably better than W.

HILLARY

Oh lord, who are you kidding? America is safer now than it was on 9/11? Really?

Ask the citizens of Kansas how safe they felt when the tornadoes hit and there weren't enough members of the national guard to call in because they are off serving in Iraq.

No Hillary, I don't feel safer on air travel because of reforms the government has made. Air travel has its dangers, as it did before 9/11 and will continue to long after. I know that I can no longer travel without checking my bags if I want to bring toiletries and that doesn't make me feel safer - just irritated.

No Hillary, I don't think it's notable that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 - after all, it's been six years - we'd been six years without an attack before Bush took office. And considering the attacks in London and Madrid, I don't think we have much about which to be excited.

It's utterly inexcusable that you voted for war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate. The nation was hell-bent on revenge in 2002 and you went along for the ride. Where was the national leader who could speak truth to power and say Iraq is not the threat we need to challenge? It wasn't entirely unknown - there were people out there saying it. You, yourself, wanted to take a diplomatic route, but you didn't stand by your own principles. You feared political reprisal - "soft on security." You didn't call Saddam on his bluff or Bush on his bluster.

Where would this nation be if we had not gone to war in Iraq? Our troops would not be inextricably condemned to country on the verge of catastrophe, but would instead be nimble enough to be deployed to face actual threats. We would not have enboldened North Korea and Iran and pushed their nuclear ambitions. Our support within the international community would be significantly greater. Our focus could have remained on dismantling terror sects, which actually might have made the world safer. Without Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we would not be providing justification for the action of our enemies.

You were thinking you couldn't look weak on security issues. A need to look tough will plague a Clinton presidency. It's hard enough for a democrat to be credible on military issues, but a woman, too? I worry that your political ambitions will cloud your judgment.

In actuality, the question of whether the nation is safer now than after 9/11 is moot. Rather than talk to me about where we are, talk to me about where you will take us. How will you lead the nation forward - in terms of economics, security, civil rights, justice and social issues?

Hillary, I give you credit for being extremely intelligent and a good Senator. But I've met you on several occasions and unlike your husband, you lack the common touch. You project the image of self-promotion rather than strong leadership. When faced with a choice of doing what is in the nation's best interest and what will get you reelected, I don't trust you to make the right decision.

Certainly you are not to blame for the tragedy that has been the last seven years of American experience, but looking ahead, I want a president who will restore true American values - rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all; a president who will seek the nation's security, but not at the cost of essential freedom; a president who will restore a sense of partnership with other nations by leading with humility, strength, honor and respect. I want a president who cares more for the nation than for his or her place in that nation.

So far, you have failed to convince me that your motivations are for the the country's good rather than your own good. That is where you must begin. We have had too many years of an administration that pursued its own glory and the benefit of a few. How will your administration take the nation in a new direction?

Inspire me. I've been ashamed of the president for too long; give me something to believe in - something greater than yourself.

Shacking up...

Again, responding to a prompt by www.helium.com - on living with a significant other... the names were changed to protect the innocent...

Any relationship that doesn’t end in marriage, ends in break up (actually, many of the marriages end that way, too) and it is ever-so-much-more-fun to move in together than to move out apart. These are the cautionary statements I provide any friend considering co-habitation.

Living together makes economic sense for many couples – save on rent, save on bills, save on shuttling back and forth between each other’s places. But this is not a step to be taken lightly.

I should have known the first time I went to Mark’s apartment that it was never going to work. The coffee table’s legs trembled under the weight of his mail and the arms and legs of various articles of clothing hung at disturbing angles out from under seat cushions. In the kitchen, there was some reminder of every meal ever eaten. All these not-too-subtle clues should have warned me that no matter what our attraction, the fundamentals of sharing a space could be problematic.

Of course I ignored the signs; after all, I was twenty-two and certainly knew enough about what I wanted from life to dive right in and marry the guy. At the time I often said that if we had been next door neighbors, our marriage might have worked out – though there was only a touch of truth to that. The problem was that he wanted to live his life exactly as it was – just adding me to it. He was never terribly concerned about what would make me happy or how his habits might be unpleasant for others – he was a real “take me as I am” type.

It could be said that our marriage ended because he wouldn’t clean up after himself. After five years of watching him throw dirty tissues near, but not in the garbage; of cleaning up the egg yolk from the counter, of sorting through his paperwork and desperately trying to find places to put it all, of picking up his pants from the front door where he left them and his underwear from the couch (don’t ask), I finally put it to him bluntly.

Though our problems went well beyond this, I boiled it down to an ultimatum – show me you love me by cleaning up the house. He said he didn’t know how to clean the way I wanted it clean. And that, as they say, was that.

So there I was, on Christmas Eve, sorting through CDs and tree ornaments, trying to figure out who gets what and what belonged to whom. I can tell you, if you want to add to the pain of a breakup, pile on the sorting of belongings. Nothing says we’re through like giving up your favorite blanket because his grandmother knitted it.

Five years later, I’ve just moved in with my boyfriend. It’s not that there aren’t any strains, but we both want to make life better for the each other. He bends to my x-chromosome neurosis about the toilet seat; I submit to his English need to close the curtains at sundown. Over the years, it really does come down to the little things.

The bottom line is that some people make great lovers, some people make great roommates, but it’s the rare significant other who is both. Know yourself – what your can live with and what doesn’t matter. And understand that traits can be tempered, but rarely changed; it’s futile to try. Some issues may be solved by hiring a maid, but more often than not, if it bothers you when you’re dating, it will only get worse when you’re living together.

And though you might be spending every waking and every sleeping moment with the light of your life, it is always nice to have a safe harbor to which to return in the event of a storm. There’s nothing wrong with living together, for all intents and purposes, but until all doubt about whether you’re in for the long haul has been erased, it’s definitely best to have a room of one’s own.

The first day off

So far, so good. But time hasn't been terribly well managed. Was supposed to get up, read the paper, go to the gym, then start writing. Instead, I got engrossed in Helium (haven't figured out what they're looking for from writers yet) and haven't done anything else.

Moira's coming for a visit this afternoon, so better get a move on.

Already got a call from work - they couldn't figure out how to hit the return carriage in a table. How will they survive without me?

Panic about not having direction beginning to set in...

Anyone? Thoughts on what I should be when I grow up? Text message your votes to....

I Swear on a Bible

So, again, I'm posting what I just wrote - not terribly successfully - for Helium.com The question was - should we continue to swear on a Bible. My opinion follows:

I recently heard that a woman was not allowed to use the Koran when she was sworn in during a court case. Of what value is it to have her use the Bible if the Bible has no meaning for her? But more importantly, why do we use religious books at all in the court? Perjury is not revealed through Divine intervention. Does God declare us honest or false? What we are truly trying to do is uphold the tenants of our form of government. And considering we are meant to have a separation of church and state, would it not make more sense to have people swear on the Constitution? The Constitution is the foundation of our country. Our legal system stems from the principles it espouses. It is non-denominational and applies equally to all citizens. When someone is found guilty of perjury, their real crime is not against God, but against the state, undermining the justice system. They are discovered not by the hand of God, but by fellow citizens. Therefore, the Constitution would be the most appropriate document for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms as what we are actually asking is that people tell the truth as part of their responsibility to the country.

Marriage - Revised

The United States was founded on the principle that all citizens are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no exceptions to that clause based on gender, race, sexual orientation or religion. Too often, this principle comes under attack when an individual’s pursuit of happiness conflicts with another individual’s moral beliefs. The question of whether marriage is an “institution between only a woman and a man” highlights this conflict in American society – but also raises more significant questions of what it means to live in a “free country” and how we truly separate “church and state.”

Among the first colonials to American shores were those seeking religious freedom; and though our history is not purely one of enlightened tolerance, we generally have accepted that one person’s understanding of God may differ entirely from another’s. As James Madison wrote, “Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us” (Memorial and Remonstrance).

Ideally, American society is supposed to embrace freedom, tolerance and reject prejudice. To be a “land of the free,” the founders recognized there must be a separation of church and state. Our laws and institutions should promote freedom and impose as few restrictions as possible on an individual’s ability to pursue happiness. It is a natural instinct in people to couple and therefore to form and recognize a committed relationship is part of many people’s pursuit of happiness, which should not be denied because of a certain subsets religious values.

Marriage is not a specific fact with a definitive definition (like two parts hydrogen plus one part oxygen IS water); it is a function of its time and place. Throughout history, it has served various purposes – from assuring property transfer to defining heirs. By modern standards, most often it is used to describe a commitment based (one hopes) on binding love. Marriage is a term that can be defined in any manner a society sees fit. The implication that there is a gender element to the term comes from religious principles that have no place in civil legislation.

As a question of semantics, perhaps “marriage” should be left to the religious to define as they see fit. The state should recognize “civil unions” only and for all.

America must not allow any particular religious viewpoint to dominate or become law. Freedom depends on safeguarding ourselves not only from outsiders, but from the tyranny of the majority. If we must err, we should err on the side of allowing too much liberty, rather than too little.

Marriage

I just discovered a site called Helium that invites people to write on various issues. I happened on the issue of gay marriage. Of course I couldn't let that one pass without comment. While this certainly wasn't my most eloquent prose (I actually do have work to do on my last day and therefore was trying to crank something out quickly), I did touch upon many of my main points. I will never understand the hypocrisy of people who use religion as a means to justify prejudice. I don't understand people who believe in a cruel and judgmental God. I'm sure, though, that I'll get into religion far more in posts-to-come and since I have 9 minutes until pizza arrives and I still have this project to do, I guess I'll just paste my little rant below.

On Marriage - for all.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is the country's founding principle. It doesn't have any exceptions for whether you agree with your neighbor's concept of happiness. It doesn't specify that the pursuit of happiness must be in concert with any specific religious beliefs. In fact, in those documents that define what kind of nation this country would be, it specifically says each individual has religious freedom.

Who has defined marriage as a "sacred institution between only a woman and a man?" Presumably, anyone who agrees with that statement will reference a religious doctrine. Though perhaps inspired by a divine source, even religious documents were transcribed by humans and humans are fallible - subject to their times and their personal prejudices. Perhaps, therefore, interpretations of those documents should err on the side of promoting love and kindness and mutual support, no matter who is exhibiting those qualities.

Most religions are, most fundamentally, about God's love for mankind. God loves his "children" and wants them to love one another. Religious testament asks us not to judge others, lest we be judged. This is particularly important when twice or thrice married individuals (like those members of Congress who passed the "Defense of Marriage" act) criticize monogamous, loving relationships between other couples who happen to be members of the same sex.

One of those imponderable questions is how anyone's relationship is in any way impacted by other couple's relationship. To claim that opening God's sacrament of marriage to other couples in any way diminishes its value is an indication of extreme insecurity and bigotry.

Now, if it's a question of semantics, one can make a strong argument that the state should not be involved in conferring "marriage" on anyone. Leave that to the churches and then leave it to the churches to pursue hypocritical policies that deny God's love and sanction to one's fellow men and women. The state should only confer "civil unions." But those civil unions should not be something for which anyone has to ask permission - it is not the state's duty to determine who is eligible to pursue happiness. It should be something about which one simply informs the state. "I am now part of a civil union."

And certainly this is not a "state's rights" issue. When liberal politicians make that argument it is an incomprehensible cop out. How can a couple be married in Massachusetts but not in Kansas? What happens if they must move to Kansas for work?

Someday, people will have to turn away from the dark side of religious indoctrination, fear and prejudice to realize that God's true message is one of love. Love, in any form, is good and should be encouraged. And more importantly, people should realize that morality is a personal issue that should be lived and taught among families - not legislated and not imposed on strangers.

This is a country came to be because brave individuals wanted the opportunity to live free and worship (or not) as they saw fit. Who are we to destroy their vision and undermine their noble purpose?

The Alpha and the Omega

I am a child of the transcendentalists- Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman. I learned where to walk from Frost.

And yet, here I sit... in a cube. Very little marrow-sucking going on here. Soul-sucking, but not much else. I rarely yalp. And I have literally, but not figuratively plunged into the sublime seas.

Even as I stare at the screen, minutes tick by bringing me ever-closer to the one thing I've wanted for years - freedom.

In twenty-four hours, I will begin a brief sabbatical from reality. Two months off from work. Well - I've just barely enough money to make it two months; I'm hoping it lasts that long...

I plan to use this space to think through the things that bother me - work (generally - the fact that we have to, the fact I can't find anything I like doing, my fear of wasting life and ending up living many years after the money's run out); the state of US government (the administration governed entirely by the Peter Principle); the election (Barack? Hillary? Just don't let it be McCain); life in New York (I don't want to be a part of it - I want a little cottage on the sea); and any other thought that happens to pop up.

Two months to figure out my raison d'etre. Two months to sort out a new job. Two months to figure out where I've been (my divorce, my import boyfriend, my six jobs in six years) and where I could go...